Method and apparatus to utilize wind energy that leaks into a structure to protect it from high winds

ABSTRACT

Method and apparatus to efficiently utilize wind energy that “leaks” into a structure during high winds; to protect that structure from those high winds. By capturing, channeling, concentrating this wind energy within that structure; to directly operate any number, type, form, size and/or shape of “self-activating” relief valves and/or transfer openings installed on various external and internal surfaces. The internal areas of these structures will be constructed as “single pressure vessels” with sealed external surfaces, where channels are established allowing all of the rooms, cavities, floors, plus any and all other internal areas within the structure to communicate. The prior art only applied “controlled openings” to various external surfaces of the structure and not to any internal surfaces; and they all failed to use of this uninterruptable, unlimited, free wind energy that “leaks” into structures during all high wind events.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

I am the first inventor to conceive and produce a working prototype of amethod and apparatus to efficiently utilize wind energy that “leaks”into a structure during high winds; to protect that structure from thosehigh winds. By capturing, channeling, concentrating this wind energywithin that structure; to directly operate any number, type, form, sizeand/or shape of “self-activating” relief valves and/or transferopenings. High wind protection for structures with one or more externalsurfaces, separating one or more internal areas with one or more floorswith one or more rooms and one or more internal surfaces, from anoutside. These internal areas will be constructed as “single pressurevessels” with sealed external surfaces, where channels are establishedallowing all of the rooms, cavities, floors, plus any and all otherinternal areas within the structure to communicate. Captured wind energythat leaks into the structure in an unplanned way, will be utilizedthrough the use of “self-activating” transfer openings and/or reliefvalves installed on various external and internal surfaces.

The prior art only applied “controlled openings” to various externalsurfaces of the structure and not to any internal surfaces within thestructure. Additionally, all prior art employed the standard method ofconstructing structures as multiple pressure vessels, where almost noneof the internal rooms, cavities, spaces, floors, areas, etc. within thestructure could communicate with each other; leaving them prone todestruction from high winds. This method and apparatus will produce asingle, strong, pressure vessel that will operate at a uniform windenergy pressure and withstand substantially stronger winds and increasedwind energy pressure challenges, than multiple pressure vesselstructures. Further resistance to high winds can be accomplished byestablishing a channel to outside; at the external surfaces of all ofthese internal areas. Utilizing captured wind energy that “leaks” intothe structure to operate “self-activating” transfer openings and/orrelief valves, in these channels. Relieving wind energy pressurebuildups within the structures, to an outside, as they occur duringthese strong wind energy pressure challenges; and before this capturedwind energy can become so concentrated as to cause catastrophicstructure failure.

Previous attempts have failed to detect this free captured wind energythat “leaks” into structures, so they mistakenly used “control theory”systems involving electrical power, data processors, controllers,“controlled openings”, pressure transducers, static and dynamic pressuretheory and/or sensors; to protect structures from high wind challenges.Their “controlled openings” are not “self-activating” as taught by thepatent application at hand. They are totally, externally influencedand/or assisted by electricity, their pressure sensors, pressuretransducers, controllers, data processors; even when “operatedmanually”, which is just another form of external influence. Disconnecttheir openings from electrical power and/or their pressure sensors,pressure transducers, controllers and/or data processors; and these“controlled openings” will never operate properly, if at all. Since myscheme utilizes this uninterruptable and unlimited captured wind energythat “leaks” into the structure to operate all of my transfer openingsand/or relief valves; they do not suffer from any of these prior artlimitations.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The design of structures in hurricane zones, tornado alleys and otherhigh wind prone areas is a complicated and difficult issue that hasundergone much study and scrutiny over the years. The events of the pastseveral years have further heightened this research. Constructiondesigns that are resistant to strong, high velocity winds and thedramatic wind energy pressure fluctuations and differentials they cause;are not only difficult to accomplish, but exceedingly difficult toaccomplish when guided by prior art assumptions. Assumptions concerningthe design of structures have been determined by me to be inaccurate, ifnot totally incorrect. One of the tasks of structure architects,designers, developers, contractors, owners, building codes and/or othersis to construct structures that can survive high wind challenges.

For the past 108+ years, building construction has involved theconstruction of an enclosed living and/or working area that is usuallysealed as well as possible to all surrounding environments including theun-sealed attic and/or roof cavities (creating one pressure vessel);along with separate un-sealed attic and/or roof cavities that areallowed to leak to all surrounding areas except the enclosed livingand/or working area (creating another, separate, but leaky, pressurevessel). Plus, sealed floor cavities, sealed roof cavities, sealedceiling cavities, along with sealed external and internal wall cavities;creating even more, individual and totally separate, pressure vessels.For a description of “sealed”, I refer to Webster's; “to close or makesecure against access, leakage, or passage by a fastening or coating”,and “to fix in position or close breaks in with a filling (as aplaster)”. I will also italicize all future quotes and special phrasesfor clarity and to allow them to easily stand out.

These prevalent mistakes have resulted in individual structures thatincorporate multiple, yet totally separate and individual pressurevessels, with shared vessel walls that end up working against oneanother and weakening all of the areas involved, which in turn weakensthe entire structure. This common error in design has in turn lead tothe premature failure of structures during hurricanes, tornadoes andeven excessive straight-line winds. Through my extensive research intostructure pressures involved in the my three granted U.S. Pat. Nos.6,584,855; 6,968,745 and 7,127,850; I have discovered that theseuncontrolled, multiple, separate and individual pressure vesselsexisting next to one another, while sharing some vessel walls; generatesa series of structure failure points during strong winds and wind energypressure challenges.

Winds result from atmospheric pressure differentials. High winds resultfrom deep atmospheric pressure differentials. As these atmosphericpressure differentials pass over or even near these multiple pressurevessel structures, the wind energy pressure differences generatedbetween these individual and totally separate, pressure vessels withinthe structure, such as the enclosed, sealed, living and/or working area,the un-sealed attic area, the un-sealed roof cavities, the sealedinterstitial areas, sealed floor cavities, sealed roof cavities andsealed wall cavities, etc., that share common vessel walls, dramaticallyincrease and can lead to the premature failure of the structures. It isthese uncontrolled high wind energy pressure differences, between thesetotally separate and individual pressure vessels, some with sharedwalls, working against one another, that can literally pull, compress,tear and blow a structure apart.

My 23 years of research in the field of structure pressure has taught memany things. One is that air moves into a standard structure on the windimpact wall, as air moves out of the other three walls. Even when thewind impacts the walls of a standard structure in a glancing blow, thenet effect is roughly the same; approximately 75% of the external wallsurfaces are under a high-velocity-low-pressure wind energy effectgenerated by wind; which pulls air out of the structure. The remainingapproximately 25% of the external wall surfaces are operating under alow-velocity-high-pressure wind energy effect generated as the windimpacts these areas, resulting in air being pushed into the structure.This results in an ever increasing high-velocity-low-pressure windenergy effect on roughly 75% of the skin, or external surface, of astandard structure. As the wind increases, structures begin to reside atlower, and lower pressure than the outside.

I originally thought that this phenomenon continued on forever and thatstructure pressures just grew ever lower than outside and is the primaryidea that I based my original three patents on. Through my continuedresearch, I discovered that something very interesting began to occurwhen wind speeds reached somewhere around 60 to 70 MPH. This phenomenonreverses itself and the stronger winds on the approximately 25%low-velocity-high-pressure wind impact wall, begins to push much moreair into a standard structure than can be pulled out of the remainingroughly 75% high-velocity-low-pressure wind energy walls; and structuresbegin to operate at an ever increasing high pressure in comparison tooutside.

In 1684 Blaise Pascal wrote the primary rule of pressure, known as“Pascal's Law”: “a change in the pressure of an enclosed incompressiblefluid is conveyed undiminished to every part of the fluid and to thesurfaces of its container”. In the case at hand, atmospheric air is thefluid and it can be considered incompressible. All of the structure'swall cavities, floor cavities, ceiling cavities, sealed roof cavitiesand other cavities are normally sealed with plaster, so they eachoperate as standalone pressure vessels/containers. For a definition of“vessel” I turn to a Webster's dictionary: “a container for holdingsomething”, the “something” in our case is “the wind energy pressurethat leaks/pushes its way into the structure through its skin/surface”.“Pascal's Law” can also be interpreted as: “the pressure at any point inthe contained fluid field is the same as at any other point in thecontained fluid field”. Based on this information, the patentapplication at hand defines “single pressure vessel” as “any and allinternal areas and/or spaces of the protected single pressure vesselwithin the structure, that are sealed to all surrounding areas, excepteach other; so that any wind energy pressure that leaks/pushes into thecontained fluid field of the single pressure vessel, resides atequilibrium, that changes uniformly; whereby any wind energy pressurechange applied at any point in the fluid field is immediately equalizedwithin the single pressure vessel and immediately conveyed undiminishedto the surfaces of the single pressure vessel”.

This is the primary physics behind my first three granted U.S. patents.I chose to determine the pressure of a vessel by measuring the speed ofair as it enters and/or leaves through holes in the surfaces of astructure/container/vessel. Because I knew that any and all pressurechanges applied to the fluid field within anystructure/container/vessel; will also be immediately conveyedundiminished to the surfaces of that structure/container/vessel.Webster's defines “equilibrium” as “a state of balance between opposingforces or actions that is either static or dynamic”. Webster's defines“equalize” as “make equal, uniform”. While defining “uniform” as “(1)always equal; (2) non-differentiated”. For this invention, “uniform” and“equilibrium” mean/describe the same thing and are interchangeable, andrefer to “any attempt, method, scheme, plan, assemblage of parts,occurrence and/or apparatus that allows pressure and/or air to equalizeto a uniform equilibrium within the structure and/or the single pressurevessel”.

I began to closely study the effects of “Pascal's Law” on a standardstructure during a high wind event. I quickly determined that thedramatic high-velocity-low-pressure wind energy flowing over roofsduring a strong storm are insufficient on their own to pull/lift asingle roof from a single structure, so I turned my attention to thewind energy that these high-velocity-low-pressures winds generate,within the structure. Wikipedia describe “wind” as “the flow of gases ona large scale” and goes onto say “air is accelerated from higher tolower pressures”; so “pressure energy” is the root force of all “windenergy” and is why air will only move from all higher pressure areastowards low pressure storm areas, based on Pascal's teachings and DanielBernoulli's dynamic/velocity pressure equation: “the square root of thispressure differential; times the constant 4005; equals the velocity ofthis movement of air in feet per minute”, thereby generating “windenergy”. Air is just the fluid, the important information is the dynamicwind energy pressure imparted on it, as represented by Bernoulli'svelocity/dynamic pressure formula stated above. Air, plus this energy,is what we call “wind energy”. I could not find a definition of “windenergy” and must assume that its very name describes itself. For thepatent application at hand “wind energy” will be used to describe “anyenergy, motion and/or force derived from wind, wind speed, includingpressure, pressure from wind, dynamic pressure, dynamic pressure energy,dynamic wind pressure, dynamic wind energy pressure, wind pressureenergy and/or any version thereof, regardless of how it is used”.

Wikipedia describes “wind power” as “the conversion of wind energy intoa useful form of energy” which will be used in this application. “Whenwork is done upon an object, that object gains energy; the energyacquired by the objects upon which work is done is known as” “mechanicalenergy”. Wikipedia defines “dynamic pressure ” as “being closely relatedto the kinetic energy of a fluid particle” and “the pressure of a fluidparticle in motion”, again the fluid particle in our case is air,therefore in the patent at hand, “dynamic pressure”, “dynamic pressureenergy”, “dynamic wind pressure”, “dynamic wind energy pressure”, “windpressure energy”, “wind energy pressure”, “pressure from wind”, “wind”,“wind energy” and/or any versions thereof, describe the same force,motion and/or energy and can be used interchangeably.

The definition of the primary terms used to describe this invention needto be established. Webster's defines “utilize” as “to make use of turnto practical use”; “capture” as “to take captive”. “Channel” is definedas “a means of communicating”; “concentrate” is “to accumulate”. So forour purposes here “to utilize wind energy within a structure” refers “toany and/or all attempts, schemes, plans, assemblage of parts,occurrences, methods, strategies and/or apparatuses that uses any formand/or type of wind energy whatsoever within a structure, regardless ofthe output”.

“Capture/captured/capturing” refers to “any and all attempts, schemes,plans, assemblage of parts, occurrences, methods, strategies and/orapparatuses whereby wind energy becomes captive and/or trapped within astructure”.

“Channel/channeled/channeling” refers to “any and all attempts, schemes,plans, assemblage of parts, occurrences, methods, strategies and/orapparatuses imaginable for allowing this captured wind energy within thestructure to communicate with any and/or all areas within the structureand/or an outside, for any purpose imaginable”.

“Concentrate/concentrated/concentrating” refers to “any and allattempts, schemes, plans, assemblage of parts, occurrences, methods,strategies and/or apparatuses for accumulating wind energy within astructure”.

“Utilize/utilized/utilized” refers to “any and all attempts, schemes,plans, assemblage of parts, occurrences, methods, strategies and/orapparatuses to make practical use of any and/or all captured, channeledand concentrated wind energy within a structure in any way conceivableand/or imaginable”.

Velocity/dynamic pressure is the high-velocity-low-pressure wind energythat impacts the walls of a standard structure during a high wind eventand immediately slows to become a low-velocity-high-pressure wind energyforce; once it forces its way into a standard structure through small“leaks” the structure's skin/surface. Where it continues as a captured,low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force within the structure. Forthis invention,“leak/leaked/leaking/infiltrate/infiltrated/infiltrating” areinterchangeable and refer to “wind energy entering the structure and/orsingle pressure vessel by mistake and/or in any unplanned way”. Thiscaptured low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force will quickly beginto tear apart the structure's external wall cavities, floor cavities,ceiling cavities, roof cavities and other cavities within multiplepressure vessel structures.

This can be avoided if the structure is constructed as a single pressurevessel as taught by this patent, because only then can this captureddynamic wind energy pressure that has leaked into the structure; bequickly channeled, undiminished to all of the external surfaces of thesingle pressure vessel's, internal areas. Where this capturedlow-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force can be utilized to actuallystrengthen these same surfaces against strong impact winds, by exertingan approximately equal counter force on these same areas, according to“Newton's Third Law” which states that “to every action there is anequal and opposite reaction”. Sealed external wall, floor, ceiling, roofand other cavities will prevent this strengthening from occurring. Thisis why the structure must become a single pressure vessel operating at auniform pressure, so that all captured wind energy pressure changes willbe immediately channeled undiminished to all of its surfaces, as itstrives to reach equilibrium within the structure, with any excess windenergy pressures channeled to outside, preventing structure failure.

Pascal and Bernoulli agree that “velocity pressure” and “dynamicpressure” are the same force, and as stated above is “the pressure of afluid particle in motion”; so to measure them, one must measure themovement of air. “Static pressure” is defined as “the pressure of afluid particle that is not moving”. Therefore, static pressure sensorsand/or pressure transducers cannot measure the pressure of moving air,so they will never accurately measure velocity/dynamic wind energypressures, nor could they ever measure them quickly enough. All beforeme have attempted to determine the differential pressure of a standardstructure during a storm, and even during normal wind conditions, usingpressure transducers, static pressure sensors and/or theory, thereforethey have always failed. Since static pressure sensors and/or pressuretransducers must be deployed directly into the fluid field, where theymust wait until the structure's entire fluid field begins to actuallyinflate, before additional wind energy pressure is imposed on a staticpressure sensor. By then the damage to the structure will have alreadyoccurred. A much faster scheme was needed to accurately and quicklymeasure structure pressure and my first two granted patents directlyaddressed this particular issue. I employed “Pascal's Law” by measuringthe dynamic pressure of a structure/container/vessel directly at itssurface/skin by measuring the velocity of air as it enters and leavesthe structure. This method is much faster and far more accurate and wasnever used before me, by the prior art.

The patent application at hand is also based on dynamic pressure in theform of the low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force, which becomescaptured within a structure during a high wind event. Including exactlyhow to channel, concentrate and/or utilize captured wind energy to savethe structure by using it to operate “self-activated” transfer openingsand/or relief valves to establish communication channels; while alsostrengthening the impact walls. When I stood below my roof mountedskylight and saw it pop open every few seconds, and even faster as thewinds strengthened during IVAN and felt the dramatic rush of air by meon its way out of my home, I instantly knew my research and math wasright and that I had discovered something new, important and verypowerful.

I soon realized that this captured low-velocity-high-pressure windenergy force can easily be channeled, into one or more channels within astructure; then concentrated and/or utilized to operate any form, typeand/or size of wind powered device. The force, motion and/or mechanicalenergy generated by these wind powered devices can be transmittedthrough connection with any form, type and/or size of machine deviceincluding but not limited to electrical power generators. Large amountsof mechanical energy can be generated within properly designed “windenergy structures”, in winds as low as 1.0 MPH, and continue operatingthroughout hurricanes and/or tornados.

How does this low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force becomedestructive within a structure? During high velocity wind events,approximately 25% of a structure's external cavities on the wind impactside of a standard structure begin to inflate to an ever increasing highpressure as wind energy enters through “leaks”. Once thishigh-velocity-low-pressure wind energy force enters the structure itimmediately loses velocity and quickly becomes a capturedlow-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force. “External wall cavities,roof cavities, floor cavities, ceiling cavities and/or any interstitialareas”, refer to “any wall cavity, sealed roof cavity, floor cavity,ceiling cavity and/or any interstitial area that has an outside on oneside of the wall cavity, sealed roof cavity, floor cavity, ceilingcavity and/or any interstitial area and the enclosed internal areawithin the single pressure vessel, on the other side of the wall cavity,sealed roof cavity, floor cavity, ceiling cavity and/or any interstitialarea”. This ever increasing low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy forceis transmitted undiminished to all of the surfaces of these externalcavities. This can cause these sealed external cavities to actuallyinflate and expand before the air can further “leak” into the structurecore. For a description of “core” I turned to Webster's: “the center ofan object”. Therefore, in the patent application at hand, the term“structure core”; “includes all of the internal areas, rooms, etc. ofthe single pressure vessel, which are located within the structure”.

This expansion can weaken everything connected to these externalcavities such as windows, doors, roofs, etc. It can progress to thepoint that windows, doors and roofs are actually blown out and off ofthe structure. Unchecked, I assert that this low-velocity-high-pressurewind energy force can quickly grow to the point in these externalcavities and the structure core where they contain enough captured windenergy pressure to easily push windows and doors out of the actual windimpact wall of a structure, directly against 100+ MPH winds. Therefore,wall openings as employed and taught by previous patents, couldeventually be prevented from opening when needed by the high velocitywind impact. Or, more importantly they could be blown open by thiscaptured low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force within thestructure; leading to the assured destruction of the structure.

The deflation of the approximately 75% of a structure's downwindexternal wall cavities of a standard structure, is also conveyedundiminished throughout these external structure cavities and can easilyprogress to the same point where windows, doors and roof connectionswithin these cavities are weakened. Whether deflating or inflating, theresult is the same, over time and many, many storms, or just one strongstorm; all connections within these external structure cavities areweakened, including roof tie downs. The low wind energy pressureexternal cavity during one storm may be the high wind energy pressurecavity during the next storm, or even later during the same storm.

The inner core of the structure is another totally separate pressurevessel, from the individual external cavity pressure vessels. One of thepurposes of this invention is to address this situation by establishingchannels that allow all external cavities to easily communicate with theinner core of the structure, establishing a much larger single pressurevessel that can easily withstand much strongerlow-velocity-high-pressure wind energy forces and thereby eliminate theopportunity of these multiple vessels with shared vessel walls, fromworking against each other and eventually tearing and blowing each otherapart, right along with the entire structure.

These external cavity low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy forces areslowly transmitted directly to the core of the structure through leakingshared vessel walls. Once the structure core begins to experience thisever increasing low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force, it willalso weaken as it inflates. Other “internal cavities” of the structuresuch as but not limited to floor cavities, ceiling cavities, wallcavities, attic cavities and/or other interstitial cavities will nowoperate as even more totally separate pressure vessels that reside atdifferent pressures than the structure core and its external cavities.“Internal wall cavities, floor cavities, ceiling cavities and/or anyinterstitial areas”, refer to “any wall cavity, floor cavity, ceilingcavity and/or any other interstitial area that has enclosed, internalareas within the single pressure vessel, on both sides of the wallcavity, floor cavity, ceiling cavity and/or any interstitial area”. Overtime the ever increasing pressure differentials experienced between allof these totally separate pressure vessels with shared vessel walls,within the structure, begin to tear and pull against one another,further weakening the entire structure.

My research teaches me that this ever increasing internallow-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force within the structures coreeventually concentrates to the point where it blows roof membranes andsometimes entire roofs, off of structures. Many before me have assertedthat the increased relative air flow parallel to the top surface of theroofs and/or wind under roof eves during a storm, generates a sufficienthigh-velocity-low-pressure wind energy force over these roof surfaces,to lift/pull the roof from a standard structure. I say they have nevertruly understood the real problem, so they have failed every time theytried to solve it. Building codes doubled the number of roof tie downsto solve roof lift. This attempt at an improvement failed to producenoticeable results. If one does not know the real problem, then they cannever solve it; dooming them to only treat the symptoms of the realproblem. The real problem is run away low-velocity-high-pressure windenergy forces within structures; that eventually becomes so concentratedthat they blow the roof off of the structure, and/or explode the entirestructure. In high rise structures this run awaylow-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force on the individual floors;eventually blows windows and walls out.

I ran many aerodynamic calculations based on “Newton's Laws of Motion”and “Bernoulli's Principal” and mathematics, and I hereby declare that Inever came across a single formula or solution that would generate asufficient lift to pull a single roof from a single structure it isattached too, even before I added the additional drag forces of the rooftie downs. I would love to see someone prove me wrong, so I can learnsomething new. Both flat and sloped roofs failed to provide the smooth,streamlined air flow pattern required to provide a sufficientaerodynamic lifting force, especially when dormers, chimneys, roofvents, etc., were added to the calculations. It must be remembered thatsloped roofs and especially flat roofs, generate high Reynolds Numbersover their surfaces as the air moves up walls and over the roof.Turbulence always denies lift.

After running many of these calculations, my 23 years of structurepressure work along with my 32 years of living in a highly activehurricane zone; it is my opinion and observation, that the predominantcomponent of the aerodynamic force that occurs in the wind fluid flow upto approximately 60 MPH, relative to approximately 50% of a standardstructure that have winds flowing along them; is manifested as a “dragforce that acts parallel relative to the flow”. This explains theability of this flow to pull/suck/draw air out of approximately 50% ofthe structure's external surfaces that have up to 60 MPH winds flowingalong them. Then when the wind fluid flow along these same sides of astandard structure exceeds approximately 60 MPH, the predominantcomponent of the aerodynamic force is manifested as a “lifting forcethat acts perpendicular relative to the flow”. This explains why theability of this flow to pull air out of this approximately 50% of thestructure's external surfaces; is dramatically reduced during highstrong winds. The approximately 25% of a standard structure that istruly downwind, does continue to encounter a high-velocity-low pressurewind energy force that continues to pull/suck/draw air from a standardstructure, regardless of wind speed. I hereby declare that I have neverseen or heard of anyone else explain this phenomenon this way and that Ihave shared it with no one until I did so in previous parentapplications to this one. I spent a lot of my personal funds andproductive hours to learn this and use it in the patent application athand, and to protect my own home from hurricane IVAN.

And yes, I am saying that a high-velocity-low-pressure lifting windenergy force definitely exists over the roof of a standard structure, itis just dramatically insufficient to lift a single roof from a standardstructure, even during hurricanes and tornadoes. It failed to lift myoperating skylight from my home during hurricane IVAN when only onepiece of ½″ bungee and one piece of ½″ rope, tied so it would let theskylight open 10″ were available to keep it from flying away. In otherwords, the elastic memory of ½″ bungee is all that was needed to keep myskylight closed and prevent it from being torn from my roof. This ispositive proof that the 138 MPH high-velocity-low-pressure winds of IVANthat raced over my roof, were unable to lift even this skylight against½″ bungee. It only opened every few seconds to relieve the built updynamic wind energy pressure from within my home; and then slam shut,directly against these same roof lift forces. When I sold my home in2005 it was still there, undamaged.

These roof lift forces are however quite sufficient to make my same roofmounted relief valves extremely efficient and quick, due to the largewind energy pressure differentials that are generated on the roof, inrelationship to the captured dynamic wind energy pressure within thestructure. The perpendicular lifting force along the sides of thestructure will render wall mounted openings as used in prior art,inefficient, if not totally inoperative. All before me have failed tounderstand this important phenomenon, so their attempts at protecting astandard structure during high winds, have totally failed as they onlytreated the symptoms of the real problem, but never treated the realproblem itself.

I hereby assert that the walls of a standard structure, experience farstronger impact forces than these roof lift forces during strong storms;due to the well-known “Coanda Effect” that teaches “the tendency of fastmoving streams of air to deflect towards a nearby surface”, which meansthat winds usually deflect towards and move parallel to the surface ofthe Earth. This tendency even increases when the surface is curved, likethe Earth. So, even though both hurricanes and tornadoes have cyclonicmotions which are governed by Coriolis Effect, the strong high velocitywinds they generate will contact structures with an aerodynamic forcemoving parallel with the Earth's surface and perpendicular to astructure's vertical external walls. Contacting the external walls thatface the oncoming winds with the strongest possible impact force, beforemoving over the roofs and generating a far lesser lifting force.Bernoulli's equations linked with the mathematics supporting the CoandaEffect, back my assertion.

So, other than within the actual vortex; high velocity, straight linewinds moving parallel to the Earth's surface cause most of the structuredamage encountered during tornadoes, derechos, hurricanes and all otherhigh velocity winds. Tornadoes do not just lift up everything theyencounter and carry it away, as some believe. If this were true, thentornado damage zones would be wiped clean of all debris, making startingover a whole lot easier. But this is not true. Yes, the actual vortexcenter of a tornado can lift objects until the air mass (air plusenergy) beneath the object weakens to the point where it becomes lessthan the mass (weigh corrected for shape) of the object; allowingobjects to simply fall from the sky. Objects that are lifted anysignificant distance, are light.

I hereby assert that most, if not all structures damaged by high windsare blown apart as described within this specification and not aspreviously believed. Other support is found in the pictures on TV; whichshow walls still standing when roofs are blown off. I would love forsomeone to try to prove me wrong so I can learn something new. Plus, Iawait an explanation of how these walls remained standing, when theroofs of the same structure have been blow off. I would also love forsomeone to explain how my skylight survived the 138 MPH winds thatflowed over my roof; with only the ½″ bungee holding it down. Myresearch and mathematics all combine in a coherent theory that simplyand completely tells the truth about what is happening. The walls arecurrently strong enough to withstand strong storm winds and current rooftie down requirements are sufficient to keep the roofs on thestructures. Provided the captured low-velocity-high-pressure wind energyforce within the structure's cavities and its core, are channeled andallowed to quickly communicate with each other and generate a singlepressure vessel; and prevented from becoming excessively concentratedand explosive.

To keep this high wind induced and ever increasing, capturedlow-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force within structures frombecoming so concentrated that is destroys a standard structure; a directchannel must be established so that the inner core of the structure caneasily communicate with an outside, in a “self-activating” way. Myscheme was the first ever, to utilize this capturedlow-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force within my home/structure tooperate my “self-activating” relief valve/skylight; which can be set atany desired relief pressure. Presently, I think that the structureshould be kept at a slight higher pressure, in relationship to outside;allowing “Newton's Third Law” to help save the structure. I herebydeclare that I have done extensive research on the size requirements ofthese relief valves to outside and all of the other pressure reliefopenings located on various internal surfaces within the structure, asdescribed in this patent, for single story and multiple story structuresand have developed a formula for sizing them, but I do not want torelease it until I have had the time to conduct extensive testing toverify my mathematics; so that I do not mislead anyone.

I have over 14 years of experience selling and commissioningself-regulating, self-activating and self-contained, pressure reliefdampers, vents, openings and/or valves in the HVAC Industry. Some usedsprings, some used counter weights and some even used blatters.Pneumatic controlled, motor controlled, solenoid controlled, manuallycontrolled, electronic controlled and/or electricity controlledopenings, as used in the prior art are not included. So for our purposeshere “relief valve” and/or “self-activating valve” and/or“self-activating channel” includes “any and/or all types and forms ofself-regulating, self-activating, self-contained, wind energy operated,pressure relief dampers, openings, vents and/or valves that areadjustable to be set to open at a predetermined undesirable internalpressure set point within said structure; and allow air to easily and/orproportionally move from one space to another, and then closes againwhen the pressure situation is solved and has returned to an acceptableinternal pressure; and once the predetermined relief pressure set pointhas been set, these relief valves and/or self-activating valves do notrequire any external influence and/or any human, electrical, computer,electronic, control, sensor, machine, trigger and/or any kind, typeand/or form of external assistance to function”.

Additionally, the term “weather resistant relief valve” applies to “allrelief valves that open to an outside and must be constructed of weatherresistant material and in weather resistant dimensions, so they canwithstand high winds, salt water and extremely bad weather, forexample”. To avoid confusion the standard term “relief valve” applies toall relief valves whether they are fully removed from the outside andmounted on internal surfaces; or exposed to high winds and bad weather.Their particular installation location determines how they must beconstructed, and the decision is left to the installer.

For the patent application at hand, “self-activating” is defined as “nocontrols of any kind, including manual, can be employed if the system isto be accurately considered ‘self-activating’; and all openings must beself-contained and capable of starting, operating and regulatingthemselves once their set point has been set and be considered totallyindependent of any and/or all external influence, whatsoever; theirself-contained nature prevents the use of any electrical power,controls, electronics, information technologies, triggers and/or controlsystems of any kind in a truly self-activating system; additionally noform of ‘control theory’ involving any or all of the following: dataprocessors, controllers, controlled openings, pressure sensors, pressuretransducers, static pressure theory and/or static pressure sensors, canbe used in a truly self-activating system”. No other prior art;structure, high wind, protection scheme complies with all of the abovedefinitions of my “self-activating relief valves”. Because unlike me,they all failed to observe the unlimited, uninterruptable, free, sourceof dynamic wind energy pressure that builds up within structures duringhigh winds. On my home, I used a variation of the spring type of aself-activating, wind energy operated, weather resistant relief valve,by employing a ½″ piece of bungee cord on my operable skylight.

The only prior art involved in any of the claims herein is PARKER (U.S.Pat. No. 5,956,903) and FEX (U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850) and both of theseschemes are based totally on “control theory”; which involves the use ofelectricity to control and operated openings. Wikipedia describes“control theory” as “an interdisciplinary branch of engineering andmathematics that deals with the behavior of dynamical systems. Thedesired output (structure pressure control) of a system is called thereference. When one or more output variables (sensor readings) of asystem need to follow a certain reference over time, a controllermanipulates the input (controlled openings) to a system to obtain thedesired effect on the output of the system.” Wikipedia goes on to showthat “controllers, sensors, electronics and pneumatic or electricmotors” are always required in “control theory” applications. Webster'sdefines “dynamical systems” as “systems marked by usually continuous andproductive activity or change”; which is how all “control systems”operate, including PARKER and FEX (U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850).

Whenever PARKER and/or FEX (U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850) references theirpressure sensors, pressure transducers, controllers and/or dataprocessors, all of them are mounted apart/externally from their“controlled openings” and never installed directly on their openings;leaving all of their openings completely dependent on these remotelymounted items. Therefore, none of them are “self-activating”. PARKERdoes however mount a sensor on each of his openings, but the solepurpose of this sensor is to “sense the open or closed status of theopening”. These particular sensors are not pressure transducers nor dothey sense pressure, nor could they be used to sense any pressure orcontrol these openings, nor could they ever actually open or close theopenings, by themselves. Therefore, all of the “controlled openings” ofthe prior art operate only under the external control and externalinfluence of their externally mounted pressure sensors, pressuretransducers, controllers and/or data processors; leaving them anythingbut “self-activating”. These very devices in turn are not“self-activating” themselves as defines by this applicant; because allof them are totally dependent on electrical power to operate andelectricity is the ultimate form of external influence that usuallyfails during storms. These open-close sensors simply mean that even moreprecious seconds are lost as their information is processed by thecontroller and/or data processor.

Plus, PARKER refers to the use of “triggers” that he defines as either a“pressure transducer” or a “telephone call”, neither of which complieswith the patent application at hand's use of “self-activating valves”and/or “relief valves” as clearly defined previously. Additionally, thedrawings involved with these words by PARKER show no pressure sensor orpressure transducer mounted on the shutters involved. A trueself-activating system never needs a trigger nor does it ever needsomeone to manually do anything to assist in its control, and/or toactivate the system itself. My ideas are the only true self-activating,high wind, structure protection scheme in existence, requiring that noone do anything to assist in its control and/or to active it. Once setit is ready to protect the structure 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,even at night, or when unoccupied, even when the electrical power isout; just waiting for wind energy pressures to increase within thestructure, to activate its self-activating openings and/or valves.

I have 20+ dynamic structure pressure control systems based on schemesclaimed within my existing U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,584,855 and 6,968,745 inoperation in a Ciba Specialty Chemical Plant in McIntosh, Ala. Wheremany people have observed that when a door into a protected space isopened, thereby immediately lowering internal structure pressure; thedampers controlled by my scheme begin to move, immediately. My systemscan literally respond to any and all structure pressure challengesfaster than you can read this very sentence describing their speed. Cibahad never been able to get any other structure pressure control systemto operate; and they had 30+ units at this Plant alone. Ciba can confirmthis total failure of every other structure pressure control system theyever had, before they began to use the ones I patented. Their comment tome was that “they could not get a single structure pressure controlsystem to react to a single opened door, much less accurately controlstructure pressure”, and “their control dampers never seemed to move”.They have been amazed at how simple and elegant my dynamic structurepressure control systems are and how easy they are to install andcalibrate.

The practical application of these patented ideas allowed me to seethings about structure pressures and the movements of pressure within astructure, which no one before me on the face of the Earth, had ever hadthe opportunity to see. I hereby assert that all before me mistakenlyused the ideas taught by ASHRAE in their attempts to control structurepressure. So none of them ever actually gained control of the pressureof a single structure since the beginning of time; so how could anyonebefore me have ever had the opportunity to see what I saw occur within astructure, once I had gained control of it. As proof of this boldstatement, I offer what happened at Ciba when Tropical Storm HANNApassed within miles of this Chemical Plant during the night of Sep. 14,2002, with 60 MPH winds and 80 MPH gust. Ciba can easily verify thefollowing.

Ciba contacted me on September 15 ^(th) and told me that my dynamicstructure pressure control systems had “gone haywire” and lost allcontrol the previous day and that I needed to come find the reason forthis “failure” and provide a solution. All of my systems at Ciba providean output that is data logged on computers. These data logs proved to beinvaluable in finding solutions to previous problems; that usuallynecessitated adjustments to my digital control algorithms. This hadhappened six times previously; each rewrite requiring the installationof new computer chips in each of the digital control networks involved;which I provided for free. I knew that all educations are expensive andI was thankful to have a patience working partner, such as Ciba; so Icould have the chance to see and learn what no one before me had everhad the chance to see or learn. Previous failures had allowed me tolearn things I never knew, or even imagined could occur, within astructure. When one is the first to actually and accurately control thepressure of an entire structure, one is in for a long and arduouseducation on the intricacies of how air will move around within astructure, due to what I call “pressure bubbles” and “pressure waves”.Which are almost impossible to predict, but are controllable with fastand accurate sensor input data; linked with a sophisticated digitalcontrol network with adapting algorithms, as I employed.

Each structure at Ciba has its own unique air flow patterns that arisefrom the air distribution design; linked with internal room layout. With20+ individual structures, I was given an incredible opportunity tolearn from these different air distribution systems. These intricaciesmust be dealt with one-by-one, with each individual one teaching me moreabout how really tough it is to manage the pressures within an entirestructure; especially when I also had to contend with ASHRAE's incorrectair handler design information. In fact I actually had to design my ownspecial purpose air handlers to accomplish fast and accurate structurepressure control and I have never seen anyone else design air handlersexactly like this. Two of them are on structures at Ciba.

Introducing large amounts of outside air into structures in the humidSoutheast is extremely difficult and improper humidity control wouldspell disaster; which is exactly why I became involved in ASHRAE'sDehumidification Committee. After almost two years of constantmathematical corrections I was finally able to get my control algorithmsto efficiently and quickly handle each and every anomaly that I hadencounter within all of the different structures at Ciba; and I trulydoubt that anyone else in the World has ever seen a single one of them.Ciba had become well versed in these chip change outs and always enjoyedthe improved performance they provided. So, I just thought that theevents of Sep. 14, 2002 were just another new unique situation that Icould solve with an algorithm re-write. I went there and worked withtheir lead Mechanical Engineer, Don (full name available).

I reviewed the computer data logs for the ten+ structures involved inthe failure and was unable at first to understand what I was seeing; soI spent the next six weeks studying them in detail, before I cracked thecode on what had occurred during HANNA's high winds. Through tedious,mathematical comparison to normal operations; I discovered somethingamazing and it is related on page 4, lines 7-27, herein. This in turnled to my discovery as described on page 9, line 28 through page 13 line13, of this specification. After many more months of appliedmathematics, I learned that my digital systems were operating in a waveform frequency that resembled “noise” on these computer data logs;producing a failure alarm and loss of structure pressure control. All ofmy mathematics led me to the conclusion that the only possible cause wasthat the high velocity and turbulent winds of HANNA had blown much moreair into these structures than normal, through the wind impact wall.This in turn set up “wind energy pressure turbulence waves” within thestructure as my control network strived to regain control of structurepressure; which proved impossible until the turbulent winds finallymoderated.

It is important to note for the record; that these 20+ structures atCiba were fairly new, concrete block, industrial structures with noopening windows and steel doors with heavy duty door closers, at myinsistence. Plus, each structure underwent a meticulous inspection, withall visible holes and/or leaks sealed with caulk. Then their entireexteriors were coated with two coats, of two-part epoxy paint. I trulydoubt that any standard structure is sealed half as good as theseindustrial structures were sealed, and each one of them tookapproximately 8-15% of the structure's volume in outside air, perminute, to keep them at only a 0.10″ higher pressure than the outside.Even though they had been extremely well sealed; they still leaked badlywhen impacted by 60-80 MPH turbulent winds. So please don't tell me thatstandard structures do not leak like sieves, even during low windconditions and especially during high velocity wind challenges. I havethe installations, data logs and 23 years of experience, that proveotherwise.

ASHRAE and just about everyone else in this World operates under theillusion that structures leak very little; leaving them with the lie of“stack effect”; as our structures become mold and mildew factories.PARKER is just one more. He should have used different language if heeven thought that air was “leaking into structures” and leaving them atever increasing high wind energy pressures during high wind events, astaught within this application. But neither PARKER, nor ASHRAE, noranyone else; can teach what they know nothing about! ASHRAE cannot admitthat structures “leak” very much, or then they would have to accuratelydetermine exactly how much they leak. Then they would have todramatically increase their recommendations on the amounts of outsideair required to achieve their stated goal:of simple neutral structurepressures in relationship to outside. Much more outside air would berequired to achieve structure pressures that are higher than outside;but currently ASHRAE and just about every Mechanical Engineer in theWorld is doing everything they can to reduce outside air requirements;while “slickly” pointing to energy savings; as our structures actuallybecome inefficient energy hogs and mold and mildew factories.

It is my opinion that just about every structure in this country isoperating at a pressure that is lower that outside; turning theskins/external walls of our structures into low efficient filters, aslarge amounts of dirty, hot/cold and/or humid air are constantlysucked/drawn/pulled into structures. It cost 3-5 times more, to dealwith this infiltration than to properly condition enough outside air toavoid a low structure pressure in relationship to outside. Pretendingthat a “stack effect” existed in our structures was much easier andcheaper than actually dealing with all of our sick structures and thereal truth. The real truth is that significant amounts of air areconstantly being pulled out of the upper floors of our structures bywinds that grow stronger over height. Allowing significant “replacementair” to be pulled up from the lower floors through elevator shafts andother “pathways of least resistance”; which accounts for air movingupwards within our structures. It is my opinion that every air handlerin the World should be capable of handling much more outside air thancurrently designed, preferably around 50% of total supply air flow, ofapproximately one CFM per structure square footage. While stillproducing 48 degree F. dew point and 55 degree F. dry bulb supply air,if we are ever going to conquer our humidity ravaged, energy hogstructures. ASHRAE's current misguided theory of using dedicated outsideair units; actually causes more structure pressure problems than theysolve, by duplicating air flows and generating even more structure“pressure waves” and/or “pressure bubbles”. If one refuses to see thereal problem; they are left with only treating the symptoms of the realproblem, even ASHRAE.

Please ask Ciba if they think structures “leak”. It would only takeabout 1-2% of structure volume per minute to generate a 0.10″ higherpressure than outside, if they were hermetically sealed; but it takes alot more, almost 8-15 times as much, or 800-1500% more. I would love forsomeone, especially PARKER and/or ASHRAE, to explain this difference; if“leaks” are not involved. Most Mechanical Engineers on projects I haveworked on, say I am wrong; but I say I am the only one that has evermade structure pressure control systems work and proved it with analogoutputs. These Mechanical Engineers doom their projects to failure dueto their lack of real world experience; by providing far too littleoutside air for pressurization. I have walked away from many structurepressure projects because no one would listen to me.

Without sufficient amounts of properly conditioned outside air, perminute, no structure pressure control system will work; no matter howelegant and sophisticated the control system is. When Engineers refusedto listen to me about increasing the amounts of outside air required; Icould no longer keep selling structure pressure control systems based onmy granted U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,584,855 and 6,968,745, in good conscience.Knowing that my ideas would just fail; and the structures involved wouldturn into mold and mildew factories. So I totally stopped selling themand shut down the sales side of my incorporated business and devoted allof my time to research. I figured I would rather keep my soul than makethat kind of money.

The real truth about how important it is, to know the real truth abouthow much structures “leak”, is the real reason why the ideas expressedby PARKER; who based his scheme on what ASHRAE teaches on how to measurestructure pressures, do not work, even under light wind conditions.PARKER just regurgitated exactly what ASHRAE was teaching back in 1999concerning how to measure structure pressures! Please check me out!ASHRAE had it wrong and PARKER just repeated their mistakes. I thoughtthat only new ideas get patents? Their ideas would work if structuresdid not leak very much and structure pressures changed very little overany given hour. Their slow speed cannot account for these leaks until awhole lot of leaks have already occurred over a period of approximately6-10 minutes, per my hundreds of hours spent trying to make them work.Only then can their ideas even begin to detect an increase in thepressure of the fluid field within the structure; then they begin toreact to a situation that has been going on for over six minutes.Thereby setting into motion what I call “a dog chasing its tailscenario” whereby these static pressure control systems attempt tocorrect a pressure problem that has already changed again; setting intomotion a series of “pressure waves” and “pressure bubbles” within thestructure, that are impossible to stop until the static pressure controlsystem is disabled. Which is exactly how this I found over 100 of them.If fact, I have never found a single structure pressure control systembased on the ideas taught by PARKER and/or ASHRAE, operating properly,in my life.

My digital, dynamic, structure pressure control systems at Ciba began towork perfectly again once the high winds had passed by the structuresinvolved; just as they were programmed to do and ultimately nocorrections were required. They had done everything they could; to solvethe situation they encountered. My special dynamic structure pressurecontrol systems were required at this Ciba Plant; by Federalrequirements within NFPA 496, to prevent fugitive explosive gas releasesat this Plant, from entering electrical switch gear rooms, resulting inan explosion. These exact same dynamic systems could easily be used toprotect all structures in America along with their occupants, especiallyany Governmental, Medical and/or Military structures; from chemical,biological and dirty bomb attacks that occur outside of the structure;while also dramatically enhancing structure humidity control, every dayof the year.

This failure at Ciba let directly to the discovery of the ideas taughtin this patent involving high wind structure protection and wind energystructures. I uncomfortably learned that even my super-fast andsuper-accurate patented dynamic structure pressure control systems thatemploy the most advanced pressure sensors currently available. Could notkeep up with the turbulent wind gust generated by even this weaktropical storm, even though they leave all of the antiquated prior artsystems, including PARKER and FEX (U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850), in thedust. So I knew a tornado and/or hurricane would drive my dynamicsystems into almost immediate failure, even if the power were able tostay on.

Maybe no one before me ever understood how extremely importantunderstanding “structure leaking”, is to understanding how to controlstructure pressure and/or how to use this “leaking” to protect astructure from high winds. PARKER never even mentions anything about theeffects of winds driven leaks on the structure and the effects this canhave within a structure, but I do, in both U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850 andin the application at hand; which once again further separates us. These“leaks” are the power source for my entire high wind structureprotection scheme; so knowing about them and knowing how to use them isextremely important. Just maybe my practical application of the threeactive U.S. patents that I hold on this subject; have kept anyone elsefrom learning exactly how important structure leaking is. So how couldanyone else ever teach what I am teaching? They cannot teach what theyknow nothing about!

PARKER never mentions a single word about controlling the pressurewithin a structure; which is exactly why I was granted patent U.S. Pat.No. 7,127,850. Which is the most complete system of capturing,channeling and concentrating pressures within a new or existingstructure ever devised. I hereby declare that I have even seen myinternal structure pressure methods and apparatus as expressed in U.S.Pat. No. 7,127,850, go completely haywire in high winds; so PARKER'sscheme will also fail in high winds. In fact, while testing my theoriesI was taught the hard way that all structures must operate as “singlepressure vessels”. If they are ever to survive a single tornado orhurricane and that the openings/channels used to protect the structuremust be “self-activating” exactly as I disclose within the applicationat hand. Leaving structures that employ PARKER's scheme, unprotectedfrom explosion and destruction.

During several test of my U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850 scheme I suffered suchpersistent, severe and various failures during periods of high windsthat I disconnected my “controlled openings” while leaving my sensorsoperating and then installed “self-activating valves” in the form of,simple, adjustable weight, counterbalance operated dampers. I was justhoping that their operation would tell me where I needed to relocate mysensors too; so I could then simply calibrate out the observed anomaly.But instead and to my amazement, something new and totally unexpectedoccurred; as my pressure readings revealed that the entire area began toimmediately float at a perfect uniform pressure as these newly installed“self-activating valves” within all of the rooms involved, wildly openedand closed at unbelievable speeds; as high winds raged outside.

I quickly learned that I had to install more “self-activating valves”that opened in the opposite direction in all of the rooms that hadexterior walls, to accommodate the constantly shifting internalstructure pressures, caused by the constantly shifting high windsoutside. This is exactly why I show self-activating valves of both sidesof wall, ceiling and attic cavities, in my current FIGS. 1-4. This eventalso confirmed that the large amounts of wind “leaking” into theserooms, provided the necessary free low-velocity-high-pressure windenergy force to effectively operate all of these self-activating valves,without any electricity; which usually goes out during high winds. Whenthe winds decreased my self-activating valves just stayed closed. Itried adjusting the counterbalance weights; but there was just notenough air leaking into the structure to power any of my self-activatingvalves, and uniform pressure was lost.

I went back and forth between these two separate operating systemsduring this prolonged period of high winds; and the results were alwaysexactly the same, as related above. Once the winds had permanentlydecreased I reactivated my controlled openings as taught in U.S. Pat.No. 7,127,850; and once again gained control of all rooms. In otherwords, these tests proved that the “controlled openings” as disclosed inU.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850 and by PARKER only worked properly in low windconditions; and that my “self-activating valves” only worked properly inhigh winds, when enough wind energy was leaking into the structure topower them. I hereby declare that this is exactly why I have been sayingthat these two separate operating systems, are not the same, ever sinceApr. 11, 2006.

While somewhat crude, the above tests do represent a “Scientific Method”that had repeatable results; and means that I might just be the firstperson to ever test the actual operation of both of these two separateoperating systems, directly against one another under ever changing windconditions. I also say that this was the first time a truelow-velocity-high-pressure wind energy powered, single pressure vessel,was ever generated within a structure, employing my disclosedself-activating valves. I failed to document these failures and learningexperience because I prefer to work alone, so I can take as long as ittakes to get it right and learn from my mistakes. The exact same failurewas experienced at Ciba Specialty Chemical Plant in McIntosh, Ala. asdisclosed above; and that failure is well documented, including computerlogs; allowing Ciba to provide third party verification of that failure.I hereby declare that I have had no contact with anyone at Ciba for overeight years; and I have not manipulated them in any way!

So for the sake of clarity, one operating system (this application athand) only worked properly when high winds are blowing; while the otheroperating system (FEX U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850 and PARKER) only workedproperly when there are no high winds blowing. Based on long held“Scientific Methodology and Testing”, both of these two separateoperating systems, consistently and completely failed to operate exactlyor even similarly the same, under the exact same operating conditions;including high wind and normal wind conditions. “Scientifically” provingonce and for all that these are in fact two totally separate operatingsystems; regardless of what we agree/chose to call/name them. Myfailures describe above with U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850 along with thefailure at Ciba of my U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,584,855 and 6,968,745 systems.Compared with the success I enjoyed in my home during hurricane IVAN;verifies once and for all that these two totally separate systems do notoperate the same, and cannot be considered as the same.

This is exactly why I knew ever since Apr. 11, 2006 that my schemesexpressed within U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,584,855; 6,968,745 and 7,127,850 alongwith PARKER's scheme are not “self-activating” and they will ALL FAIL inhigh winds; just when they are needed the most. All of this togethermakes my “single pressure vessel” and “self-activating” ideas taughtthrough the application at hand; not a duplication of parts from anyother existing patent in this World, and leave my ideas producing asignificant, valuable and unexpected result. I say this is just anotherhuge discovery that began with many failures. If I had not been willingto continually test the ideas taught through U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850 andkeep on trying to figure out how to fix them in high winds, none of theideas expressed in this application at hand, would have ever beendiscovered. So, this on the job training taught me that structuresdefinitely “leak” generating a low-velocity-high-pressure wind energyforce within structures.

The associated turbulent wind energy pressure fluctuations generated byhigh-velocity-low-pressure wind energy forces outside of structures; allwork together to generate dramatic and dynamic wind energy pressurefluctuations within structures. That occur much faster than even myexisting patented dynamic four tenths of a second systems could adaptto. The self-activating, wind energy operated, high wind structureprotection system as taught in this patent application at hand,represent a whole new level of system speed that will react to dynamicwind energy pressure fluctuations within a structure at around one tenthof a second; which is barely fast enough. This means that my new, noveland non-obvious self-activating high wind structure protection systemstaught in the patent application at hand are at least four times fasterthan my own dynamic systems; which makes them at least 3,600-6,000 timesfaster than anything else available on this Planet; which by referenceincludes all existing prior art and PARKER. An advancement of thismagnitude deserves the granting of the broadest claims possible!

In high wind structure protection schemes, speed saves lives andstructures, while lack thereof will end lives, allow severe injuries anddestroy structures. As proof, I offer the over thirty times I havepersonally heard victims of tornadoes say on TV, “All this damageoccurred in just seconds”. All of the prior art high wind structureprotection schemes will fail and fail miserably during every tornado,derecho, hurricane and/or high wind event they ever encounter. I herebyassert that none of them would ever even react to a single tornado,until it is miles past the structure involved, ruining more lives andstructures. My failure at Ciba, linked with the failures of my FEX (U.S.Pat. No. 7,127,850) systems, taught me that “self-activating”, windenergy operated, openings as taught in the patent application at hand,are the only ones that will ever respond fast enough during any and allhigh wind events. Any scheme that employs any form of “control theory”will waste far too much time gathering data, then processing it and thendeciding what to do with it; while the high winds destroys the verystructure around them; even ones that employ my super-fast dynamicpressure control theory, even if the electrical power did stay on.

Therefore, all of the openings of the prior art schemes are not fastenough, nor are they “self-activating”, leaving them totally externallyinfluenced and/or totally controlled, because these openings are mountedapart from the pressure sensors, pressure transducers, controllersand/or data processors involved in their scheme, even when operatedmanually, which is just another form of external influence and/orexternal control per Webster's definition of“control/controlled/controlling” as “to exercise restraining ordirecting influence over”, which clearly means that external influenceand/or external control are always involved; which also means they areanything but independent. These pressure sensors, pressure transducers,controllers and/or data processors have the sole purpose of influencingand/or controlling PARKER's “controlled openings” by telling themexactly when to open and exactly when to close.

Since neither the drawings nor specifications of the prior art,including PARKER, shows or describes any of these pressure sensors,pressure transducers, controllers and/or data processors mounteddirectly onto any of the individual controlled openings, thesecontrolled openings are totally incapable of regulating themselves, orof any form of independent operation. This can easily be proven by justsimply disconnecting PARKER's “controlled openings” from his dataprocessor and/or controller and these “controlled openings” will nevermove again, unless someone manually moves them, which again is justanother form of external influence and control. Or just simplydisconnect all electrical power from PARKER's scheme, and nothing willever happen again. It will just sit there as the next tornado orhurricane destroys his system, right along with the structure that itwas supposed to protect. In fact PARKER's “controlled openings” onlyoperate after his data processor and/or controller waste valuable timeprocessing the data from his pressure sensors and/or pressuretransducers and deciding which “controlled openings” to influence, by“controlling” their opening and closing.

My openings employ no electricity, pressure sensors, pressuretransducers, data processors and/or controllers of any kind. Each of myindividual openings only employs blatters, springs and/or weights, andthe like, so it can regulate itself. The capturedlow-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force within the structureprovides the necessary energy to operate these blatters, springs and/orweights and the like, on my “self-activating relief valves”. No pressuresensors, pressure transducers, “controlled openings”, electric,solenoid, manual or pneumatic operators and/or any controls of any kindare required to operate the relief valves and/or transfer openings in mystructure protection scheme. All of which would fail when the powerfails. Therefore, with my scheme, no “controlled openings”, no solenoidoperated openings, no pneumatic openings, no motorized openings and/orno manual relief openings of any kind shall be applied to protect astructure from high winds.

All of the energy required to operate all of the “self-activating reliefvalves” in my structure protection scheme, will be totally utilized fromthe captured, channeled and/or concentrated low-velocity-high-pressurewind energy force that builds up within a structure during high winds.It is just these large pressure differentials generated by the inflatedhigh wind energy pressures that build up within these enclosed sealedinternal areas within the structure, due to low-velocity-high-pressurewind energy intrusions that create the potential for the explosion ofthese enclosed, sealed, separate, internal, pressure vessels within thestructure, and consequently leading to a catastrophic failure of theentire structure.

In the patent application at hand, “external” refers to “any and/or allsurfaces, areas and spaces that connect with an outside”; while“internal”, “includes any and/or all surfaces, areas and/or spaceslocated within the single pressure vessel within a structure”; and“internal surface” refers to “any surface that is located within and/orconnects with these internal areas”. For clarity “external surface” isused to define “the surface that is located within and/or connects withan outside”; to differentiate it from “internal surface”. Therefore forthis invention, “the external surface of the structure” refers to “allsurfaces that are situated at the external boundary of the structureitself”. “The external surface of the internal areas and/or externalsurface of the single pressure vessel” refers to “the surface that isthe external boundary of the internal areas of the single pressurevessel”.

There are times where the, “external surface of the internal areas ofthe single pressure vessel”, may not always be the “external surface ofthe structure” due to construction methods that place unprotected areasthat are not part of the single pressure vessel, between the “internalareas” and the “external surface of the structure”. This situation isdescribed with language such as “the external surface of the internalareas” and/or “the external surface of the single pressure vessel”;which refers to the same surface and are interchangeable. To furtherclarify, “outside” refers to “all areas of any kind that are beyond anyand all of the external surfaces just defined”. So it is possible for asingle structure to have two “outsides”; one that is “outside of thesingle pressure vessel”; and another one that is “outside of thestructure itself”.

For a description of “transfer opening”, I referred to dictionary.comwhere I only found a definition for “transfer” as “to convey or cause topass from one place to another”. For the patent application at hand“transfer openings” and/or “self-activating openings” refers to “anyattempt, strategy, scheme, plan, assemblage of parts, occurrence, methodand/or apparatus involving any self-regulating, self-activating,self-contained, wind energy operated, opening that allows air and/orpressure to be transferred/conveyed from one space to another withoutany restrictions, every minute of every day and may be as basic as asimple hole in a surface, which may or may not have a cover, that allowspressure to easily and quickly equalize between different spaces”. Thismakes them “self-activating”, since no external influence or control ofany kind is required for them to operate properly. Plus they are “windenergy operated” because “pressure differences generated as wind leaksinto the structure between various spaces will provide the necessaryenergy to move air and/or pressure through these openings”. Theseself-activating, wind energy operated, transfer openings can be any nowknown device or any device developed in the future that fits the abovedescription. There is no reason to limit the design of theseself-activating, wind energy operated, transfer openings at this time,since no one currently employs the principals as described in thispatent. Additionally, the term “weather resistant transfer opening”and/or just “weather resistant self-activating opening” applies “to alltransfer openings that open to outside and must be constructed ofweather resistant material and in weather resistant dimensions towithstand high winds, salt water and extremely bad weather, by way ofexample”. For clarity, the standard term “transfer opening” applies toall transfer openings whether they are fully removed from the outsideand mounted on internal surfaces within the single pressure vessel, orif they are located where they can encounter high winds and bad weather.Their construction will be determined by their location.

I have done extensive research on the exact size, type and location ofthese transfer openings and the practical application of the principalstaught by this patent will most certainly reveal even more information.I added over 40 leaky, recessed, lights to the ceiling and roof cavitiesof my own town home on Pensacola Beach, to act as self-activating, windenergy operated, transfer openings during IVAN, and they workedperfectly. They also provided great lighting flexibility. Many othercommon products can also be used as transfer openings, while servingother practical and useful purposes. These transfer openings will beapproximately located as shown on the drawings and mounted per themanufacturer's recommendations so that all warranties remain in effect.

The primary desired result for a “transfer opening” and/or a “reliefvalve” is the same: “to allow air to move between various, desiredspaces and allow the wind energy pressure too easily and quicklyequalize between these desired spaces and produce a uniform, equalizedwind energy pressure throughout the structure and/or single pressurevessel”. The primary difference between a “relief valve” and a “transferopening” is that a “transfer opening” is allowing air and/or wind energypressure to, quickly and easily move from one space to another withoutany restrictions, every minute, of every day, while a “relief valve ”will allow air and/or wind energy pressure to, quickly and easily movefrom one space to another, only after, the required/desired/set reliefpressure, has been reached within one of the spaces involved and thencloses again once the wind energy pressure situation is solved. Such aswhen the wind energy pressure of the area involved is reduced below aspecified maximum set point by operation of the relief valve. It shouldbe noted, that no one currently puts holes in the various internalsurfaces of structures as taught by the patent application at hand.Instead everyone operates under the misconception that all internalsurfaces within structures must be sealed and any holes are totallyunacceptable, especially in humid climates. They could not be moreincorrect.

It is impossible to decide at this stage exactly which opening should beapplied at the locations shown on the drawings. There are many variablesthat determine exactly which type of opening should be used on any givenstructure. To decide before all of the variables are known would lead tooperational and/or humidity problems and application confusion. This iswhy there is such detail in describing the use of “vapor retarders”,within this specification. Whether or not a vapor retarder is applied,along with its exact location, and exact permeability, can dramaticallyeffect which opening should be used in a particular installation. Theoutside climate can also dramatically effect which opening should beused in a particular installation. Also, structures that have atticsand/or other areas that are “un-sealed” to outside offer even morevariables as to which opening should be used in a particular location,or application. I owned a business that focused on specializeddehumidification equipment sales and installation. I have designed andinstalled many specialized dehumidification systems within the mosthumid areas of America and all are still operating properly. I gainedknowledge that few can match in America, or the World, concerningexactly how humidity and pressure can move within a structure.

I hereby declare, that I learned most of what I know about structurepressure by studying the intricacies and mathematics of exactly howhumidity moves within a structure; involving “Boyles Law” and “Fick'sLaw”, the primary “Laws of Diffusion”. As pressure differences within astructure move to reach equilibrium, they will also easily move humidityaround within that structure. It is extremely easier to measure themovement of absolute humidity within a structure, even at low dewpoints, than it is to measure the movement of pressure within the samestructure. Especially low pressure differentials, where humiditymeasurement may be the only way. I spent 23 years studying structurepressure. I discovered the hard way that pressure differences withinstructures can dramatically affect the performance of even the bestdesigned humidity control system.

I immediately learned that I had to master how to control structurepressures, before I could master the control of structure humidity. Thison the job humidity and structure pressure education, led to my firstthree granted U.S. patents. I am not trying to patent, and/or claimvapor retarders and/or their location, herein. I am using thisapplication to share what I know about when, where and how to applyvapor retarders to achieve the best “single pressure vessel”; so as toprotect structures from high winds. And I also want to share with otherswhat I have learned over the past 23 years on how, when and where toapply them to achieve better structure humidity control, for free.

The general function of “self-activating relief valves” and“self-activating transfer openings” is the same as stated previously andthose skilled in the art of humidity control will easily be able todetermine exactly when and where, which opening should be chosen basedon information contained within this patent application disclosure. Forexample, say two exact same structures are constructed, one is locatedwhere for most of the year the climate is considered cold; like inDuluth, Minn. While the other is located where for most of the year theclimate is considered hot and humid; like in Panama City, Fla. In thewinter time in Duluth the only “drying force” is the low outside dewpoint of around 20 F. If “self-activating, transfer openings” are usedon the internal surfaces of an external wall cavity in Duluth, the “Lawsof Diffusion” would allow moisture generated by the occupants throughshowers, cooking, breathing, and the like to be pulled into this cavitywhere the cold dry bulb temperature from outside could freeze thismoisture, expand it and literally tear the wall apart. So, in Duluthonly a “self-activating relief valve” would prevent structural damageand must be used in these cold locations.

While during the summer time in Panama City, the 55 F dew pointgenerated by the interior air conditioner, provides the only “dryingforce” when outside dew points soar to 80F or above. Here only“self-activating transfer openings” mounted on the internal surface ofthis same external wall cavity, would allow it to be continuously driedout. As once again the “Laws of Diffusion” allow humidity tocontinuously enter the structure from outside at around 7,500 fpm basedon the differential vapor pressures linked with mathematics byBernoulli; which he derived directly from “Pascal's, Boyles and Fick'sLaws”. Luckily the “leaks” are extremely small. So in Panama City, onlya “self-activating transfer opening” mounted on the internal surface ofthis external cavity, would allow this cavity to continuously remaindry. If a “self-activating relief valve” was used here, this externalwall cavity would only dry out during high wind events when the windenergy operated, pressure relief opening is forced open by pressuredifferentials. This would allow significant mold and mildew to growwithin this external wall cavity in Panama City when no hurricane ortornado is experienced.

Right now over two million structures, in the humid American Southeastcould have uncontrolled mold and mildew growing within their externalstructure cavities. How would any other patent in the World address thisimportant issue? My scheme is the first ever to protect a structure fromhigh winds and dramatically improve structure internal humid control. Imay be the only person in the World that has spent over 23 yearsstudying dynamic pressure, structure pressure control and structurehumidity control at the same time and concerning the same structures.Allowing me to fully understand and interrelate all of the principals,mathematics and “Laws of Physics” involved, into one concise method andapparatus. Therefore, no one before me could have ever invented the new,novel and non-obvious scheme taught in the patent application at hand,or I would have heard about them, or met them on a project, or met themthrough ASHRAE.

I can think of over twenty similar, location specific requirements wheresimilar problems could occur if a transfer opening were used in lieu ofa relief valve, or visa-versa. Another interesting fact is that the 50%or less relative humidity level generated in these external wallcavities by employing transfer openings in hot and humid climates asdescribed above, and further within this patent application. Will createwhat is called a “high stress environment” for roaches and otherinsects; which should keep them from entering a home/structure protectedby my scheme. Again employing a relief valve in exactly the samelocation would allow roaches and other insects to enter these externalcavities and live comfortably in the humid climate there. The currentstructure design of sealing all external structure cavities, alsoprevents these cavities from drying out, allowing insects to live withinthese external cavities and freely move into and out of the structure.Back in 2006, shortly after filing the parent application for thiscontinuation in part, I got on the internet and studied roaches andfound that they breathe through their skin and areas of 50% or lessrelative humidity will dry them out and they will die unless theyescape. So, another positive byproduct of this patent application athand would be less roach infestations in structures that employ what Iam teaching.

Also, to completely and exactly clarify such an interrelated set ofvariables as to which opening should be used, and under which exacthumidity and temperature and pressure conditions, would result in apatent application that would easily be over 500 pages long and bedifficult for any lay person to comprehend and be expensive and timeconsuming for me to file. The resulting confusion could easily misleadsomeone into using exactly the wrong opening, at exactly the wrong time,in exactly the wrong location and in exactly the wrong outside climate.While accurately choosing exactly when to use which opening willactually produce structures that not only can withstand high winds, butalso produce enhanced structure humidity control and/or less insectinfestations, at no additional cost, but at considerable energy savings.No other prior art patent in existence, offers this possibility. Iemployed all I have learned over the past forty years into the patentapplication at hand.

An unreasonable person might say that “PARKER disclose an apparatus andmethod that includes transfer openings or channels, (20, 21, 22, 23),which openings or channels allow for passage of air from an internalarea of the structure to an outside of the structure. PARKER alsodiscloses valves (e.g., 24, 25, 26, 27), to allow for transfer ofpressure. The valves are set to open or close at a predeterminedexternal as well as internal pressure. The openings or channels would bethe openings or channels themselves, (e.g., 20, 21, 22, 23), while thevalves are the regulating devices, (e.g., 24, 25, 26, 27)”. The openingsPARKER claims will fail when they are needed the most, in high winds,while my “self-activating” openings will be even faster in high wind.

I know I can never leave any stone unturned so I will take the aboveunreasonable statement in detail, and show how it is actually apurposeful paraphrasing of PARKER's statements into a false assertion;in order to purposefully confuse an extremely clear issue. Every timePARKER mentions these “openings” and “valves”; he uses the completephrase “openings 20, 21, 22 and 23 with opening operators 24, 25, 26 and27” making them what PARKER himself only calls his “controlledopenings”. Which do not fit any definition of a “transfer opening”,especially all of the definitions within the application at hand. Everytime PARKER ever mentions openings 20, 21, 22, or 23 in later statementsconcerning his drawings he uses these exact words “the closing ofopening 20 by motorized opening operator 24 and the opening of opening22 by motorized opening operator 26”. PARKER never separates his“openings 20, 21, 22 and 23” from his “opening operators 24, 25, 26 and27”. So he never teaches applying his “openings 20, 21, 22 and 23”without also applying his “opening operators 24, 25, 26 and 27”. SoPARKER is only teaching “controlled openings”, or “openings with valves”as these unreasonable people might now call them! PARKER's shutters arenot controlled and are just a method and apparatus for protecting“windows” from high winds and the associated flying debris; and havenothing to add to this discussion concerning “transfer openings” and/or“controlled openings”. For clarity, PARKER does teach “controlledopenings”, “that allow air to pass from an internal area of thestructure to an outside of the structure”. But that is absolutely allthat PARKER teaches on this all important issue.

Therefore, PARKER only teaches how to use “controlled openings”. Henever even uses the words “transfer” and/or “transfer openings” anywherewithin his disclosure. PARKER only uses the term “controlled openings”when referring to his openings. If PARKER wanted to use the term“transfer” and/or “transfer opening”, he should have. Plus, he shouldhave then explained exactly how different “transfer openings” are fromhis “controlled openings”. He has the burden to go into detail andexplain exactly how, when and where he wanted to use any “transferopenings”, just like he did concerning exactly how, when and where hewanted to use his “controlled openings”. But he never does, andsomething this important cannot now be inferred or assumed by you; orany other unreasonable person. Further, PARKER never mentions any desireto use any “un-controlled openings” which are exactly what “transferopenings” are. My “transfer openings” are really the exact opposite ofPARKER's disclosed “controlled openings”.

I go to great lengths to explain exactly how, when and where I want touse “transfer openings”, and it takes a lot of explaining, to make surethat they are used properly; please see above page 31 line 12 throughpage 36 line 19 herein. Misapplied “transfer openings” can do moredamage to a structure, than the high winds they are supposed to protectthat structure from. I do use “transfer openings” in the roofs of“un-sealed attics”; as I clearly point out herein, “un-sealed attics”are already open to outside, every minute of every day through soffitvents, turbine vents, gable vents, etc. All of which makes these“un-sealed attics” a part of the outside, before I ever added my“transfer openings” to them. Which is exactly why these “un-sealedattics” are also sealed from the internal living areas they are above;and why they are cold in the winter and hot and humid in the summer andare not air conditioned. Because all of that air conditioning and/orheat would just be a waste of energy; as it floats out through thosesoffit vents, turbine vents, gable vents, etc. I do add “transferopenings” to the roofs of these “un-sealed attics” as disclosed indetail herein; because most if not all of those soffit vents, turbinevents, gable vents, etc. are usually too small to release hurricane andtornado wind induced low-velocity-high-pressures, which can build up inthese “un-sealed attics”. These added “transfer openings” are properlysized to quickly release all wind energy pressure buildups, beforerunaway high wind energy pressures in these “un-sealed attics” blow theroof off the structure; allowing rain to destroy the entire structurealong with everything in it.

If PARKER applied “transfer openings” to “allow for passage of air froman internal area of the structure to an outside of the structure” likesome unreasonable people might say; then these “transfer openings” wouldbe “opened”, every minute, of every day, because there would be nothingon them to close them; and adding any form of control, even manual,turns them back into PARKER's “controlled openings”, in his own words.“Transfer openings” cannot have any form of control even manual; becausethe next tornado or high wind event could come without sufficientwarning. When the occupants are away, or asleep; and thereforeunavailable to operate any form of control, even manual control. Also,those “internal areas” now become part of the outside; through thisalways opened “transfer opening”; because PARKER would have nowestablished a “direct pathway between the internal areas of thestructure and the outside that never closes”.

This would mean that moisture in the form of wind-blown rain; along withhot very humid air in the summer and cold very dry air in the winter;could come into the structure, every minute, of every day, directlythrough these “transfer openings”. Plus, when there was a tornado orhurricane present, it would move around the structure involved andeventually drive 100+ MPH winds directly into the structure, throughtheir “transfer opening”. Quickly destroying the very structure theywere supposed to save. No reasonable person would purposefully destroytheir home by slapping a “transfer opening” on it, like theseunreasonable people are falsely asserting; in an idiotic attempt toprotect it from hurricanes and tornadoes, not even PARKER.

PARKER and I both know that if we were going to protect a structureduring a hurricane and/or tornado; by establishing a connection thatwould “allow for passage of air from an internal area of the structureto an outside of the structure”; then that connection must only openwhen it is needed, and then immediately close when it is not needed.PARKER makes this point extremely clear and so do I. If I had justpropped my skylight open the necessary 10″ and left it that way duringIVAN; the 138 MPH winds that passed over my home would have eventuallyripped it from my roof and my home would have been destroyed by wind andrain. This is why I say that all attics and roof cavities should becompletely “sealed” to outside by removing all of those soffit vents,turbine vents, gable vents, etc. Thereby deleting any requirement for“transfer openings” on these roofs. But it is not a perfect World and“transfer openings” on “un-sealed” attic roofs are much better thansoffit vents, turbine vents, gable vents, etc., alone.

I knew that my skylight must immediately close once it had released thewind energy pressure buildup; or the ever shifting winds, especially the150+ MPH gust, would have eventually caught it from a bad angle, anddestroyed it. We each just chose to utilize a different source of powerand operation to open and/or close our connections to outside. PARKERmistakenly chose to employ electricity and pressure sensors; both ofwhich will fail during most hurricanes and tornadoes, if not all. WhileI chose to employ only wind energy, which will be abundant,un-interruptible and “self-activating” during every hurricane andtornado; requiring no outside influence to initiate it, or keep itoperating throughout any storm. I say, PARKER chose poorly and unwisely.

If this same unreasonable, or some other unreasonable people, did filefor a patent on their idea of “transfer openings that allow for thepassage of air from an internal area of the structure to an outside ofthe structure” to protect that structure from high winds! They couldinclude details like just permanently removing several exterior doorsand/or windows! They must be permanently removed because removing themright before a storm and/or just simply opening them before and/orduring a storm; would exhibit “manual control” and therefore fall underthe prior art established by PARKER, through his claimed “controlledopenings”! Or, if they have “un-sealed attics” like 95% of America, theycan just rush up and kick out their gable vents along with kicking out a10 foot by 10 foot hole in their sealed attic floor; or if they havesealed attics they can just rush up on their roofs with an axe and hacka 10 foot by 10 foot hole in their roof! “Roof”? “Who needs a stinkingroof anyway”? They could just market “homes without roofs”! “Great viewsfrom your bed! Birds singing, rain falling; what a wonderfulexperience”! “Get yours now, before the next hurricane”! Watch all yourbelongings slowly mildew into mush! They will probably be granted apatent on this idea, in a year or less; because it involves magic!Specifically concerning how rain and wind and weather will magicallynever enter the structure through their “transfer openings”! Along withexactly how they will magically prevent heat, cold and humidity fromleaving the structure every minute, of every day; through their“transfer opening”! And personally I think the USPTO likes patentapplications based on magic! An issue I address in detail within apatent application concerning “wind energy structures”. That I filed onthe same day as this one!

Earlier herein I said “I hereby declare, that I learned most of what Iknow about structure pressure by studying the intricacies andmathematics of exactly how humidity moves within a structure; involvingBoyles Law and Fick's Law, the primary Laws of Diffusion. As pressuredifferences within a structure move to reach equilibrium, they willeasily move humidity around within that structure. It is extremelyeasier to measure the movement of absolute humidity within a structure,even at low dew points, than it is to measure the movement of pressurewithin that same structure. Especially low pressure differentials, wherehumidity measurement may be the only way.” It is worth repeating at thistime for emphasis because it supports my arguments above and I want toadd that I spent 23 years studying structure pressure. It was extremelyhard, exhausting, difficult, exacting and complex work, because no onehad been able to control the pressure of a single entire structurebefore I finally did.

There was no Professor I could just go ask; there was no book I couldjust go study. I had to write the book on this issue; without any helpfrom anyone else. This is how I learned firsthand that the “Fan/AffinityLaws” do not have anything to add when I had to deal with wind energywithin structures. All of my calculations always kept bringing me backto mathematics within the “Laws of Pressure”. I quickly discovered thateverybody I talked to about all of this; actually knew a lot less than Idid and I got tired of trying to educate them. Especially when theyusually just called me stupid and said I did not know what I was talkingabout; and that ASHRAE had figured all of that out, a long time ago. SoI just shut up and went back to work and stopped sharing what I waslearning with anyone, until now!

So, as stated above, some part of every hour of those 23 years of work,also included studying how moisture/humidity moved through structures.These 23 years taught me the hard way, exactly how, when and where touse “transfer openings” to avoid structure pressure and structurehumidity problems. Something PARKER has no idea about. Now, I have spentthe last eight years studying how heat moves through structures out herein the desert and it has been hitting 114 F lately, so I am learning asmuch as I can, as fast as I can. Much of my current work is based onwhat I learned during those first 23 years. And I hereby assert thatheat moves through structures, very differently than most people think;but I will never teach them what I now know! Especially not after havingeight years of my life wasted like they have been by the USPTO! This ismy life's work and I honestly doubt that anyone else on this Planet, hasspent that much time studying these same issues, ever. I have literallytaken thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands of structuretemperature, humidity and pressure readings. Spent countless days doingmathematics so that I could just try to learn something new; orsometimes just to try to figure out exactly what I was observing. But itstill took those clear dreams that I have mentioned, for it all to cometogether for me.

I have been through the Patent Examination Process before and found tomy dismay that there are some very unreasonable Examiners there at theUSPTO; that enjoy in taking the prior art out of context, and thenpurposefully paraphrasing it into many false assertions! Just like theone above, concerning “transfer openings”! I have learned the hard waythat they find great joy in purposefully confusing simple issues! Ihereby formally demand that any Examiner on any of my patentapplications, including this one, stop paraphrasing the prior art,whatsoever! And supply the exact words of the prior art in context andin “quotation marks” along with exact page and line numbers involved! Sowe can all at least begin with the real truth; instead of lies made upby Examiners! Please stop paraphrasing the prior art into purposefulfalse assertions; which misleads everyone and confuses perfectly clearsituations. All of which is extremely frustrating, time consuming, wrongand a clear abuse of your power and privilege.

Your actions represents such an egregious abuse of the public trust inour Government and the USPTO! Along with the fact that for probably thetwentieth time, I feel that my Civil Rights have been violated by youractions! I remind you that a United States patent is the right of everyAmerican Citizen; it is not a privilege to be manipulated by the greed,the evil, the rich and/or those in positions of power and/or by theUSPTO itself! Again, I assert that as a United States Citizen, I deservethe protection a United States Patent would afford me and my new, noveland non-obvious ideas as expressed in this application at hand! I feelthat I am left with no other alternative than to file a complaint withthe FBI; involving your actions concerning my ideas and your continueduse of false assertions concerning the prior art involved! This will bemy fourth complaint to the FBI on this and I have never heard back fromthem; so maybe you can continue on forever, since no body must care! Ihave also written President Obama about this intolerable situation fourtimes, and never heard a word! So now I will copy my FBI letter toCongressman John Lewis from Georgia! My mom was born in Georgia, alongwith her mom and he is the only Congressman that I trust right now, somaybe he can help me!

Additionally, he is on the House Ways and Means Committee and a RankingMember on the Congressional Oversight Subcommittee and maybe, justmaybe, he can launch a Congressional Investigation into your abuse ofpower and privilege, while Americans continue to die and wholecommunities are ravaged by tornadoes and hurricanes, like hurricanesSANDY; IKE; IRENE; along with the tornadoes that hit Moore, Okla.;Joplin, Mo.; Tuscaloosa, Ala.; and many, many more. Costing AmericaBILLIONS and unimaginable heartache.

Per my above argument on the issue of “transfer openings”; I only usePARKER's exact words to disprove your false assertion. This issue couldnot be more important! You are now attempting to take away my claimsinvolving an “open top” from me, on a separate patent applicationinvolving “wind energy structures”; by saying that PARKER is teaching“transfer openings that allow for the passage of air from an internalarea of the structure to an outside of the structure”. When he does NOT!For over eight years USPTO Examiners have attempted to take my ideaswith just these types of false assertions. A patent application is acontract where I publicly disclose my new, novel and non-obvious ideas;and in return I obtain twenty years of patent protection. I honestlythought that this patent examination process is supposed to be aboututilizing solid science and physics; that could be proven with solidmathematics and the truth. Not a purposeful manipulation of the truththrough persistent false assertions.

The prior art, including PARKER, never shows a single opening, on asingle “internal surface” within the structure. PARKER is the primaryprior art and he only shows “controlled openings” on “various surfaces”and/or “various external surfaces” of the structure; and per Webster'sdefinition for “surface” as “the external boundary an object”, only“external surfaces” apply. Yes, PARKER's openings will go through theseexternal surfaces and reach internal surfaces, but not in any way thatis similar to what this I am teaching or claiming. If PARKER wanted toteach mounting his “controlled openings” on “internal surfaces” and why;then he should have clearly said so, and fully explained why and useddifferent language such as “various internal surfaces” and defined themas I do.

PARKER very obviously chose not to; because he saw no need for them.Neither his specification nor his drawings ever mentions any requirementor desire to add any openings to any internal area and/or internalsurface, within the structure, and such an important issue cannot now besimply assumed and/or inferred by anyone. I respectfully request theexact patent and phrases in context therein, that refute thesestatements in “quotation marks”. No more paraphrases, please! I lookedand never found a single one within PARKER; or any other patent inexistence. The patent application at hand is the only high windstructure protection scheme that has relief valves and/or transferopenings; on various internal surfaces, within the structure.

Since PARKER failed to pay his maintenance fees several years ago; hisideas are now part of the public domain. So people that choose not topay me, can apply PARKER'S teachings on “controlled openings” only tothe outside walls (“skin”) of their structures to “release internalpressure”, exactly as he discloses them; for free. Without any“controlled openings” within the structure as I teach within U.S. Pat.No. 7,127,850; that could be used to create my “single pressure vessel”;and without any “self-activating relief valves” and “self-activatingtransfer openings”, as I teach. Or, they could choose to pay me for asystem that is approximately 3,600-6,000 times faster than PARKER; andincludes my “single pressure vessel” theory. Then we will all learn onceand for all, exactly who has it right after the next big storm. I havealready risked my life to test my theories; and I personally would neverrisk my life or the lives of others, to test PARKER'S theories.Especially after all that I have seen over the past 23 years, includingobserving my U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,850 scheme fail time after time, duringhigh winds.

32 years of living on Pensacola Beach, Fla. and the 20 plus hurricanes Ihad to deal with, taught me that the power always goes out during ahurricane and any control theory structure protection system, dependenton electricity in any way, will go out too and subsequently fail. So,relief valves and/or transfer openings that utilize the capturedlow-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force that builds up within thestructure during storms; as their only required energy source, as taughtin the patent application at hand. Are the only ones that will continueto work when they are needed, no matter what, no matter when.

I built the invention that this patent teaches, onto my own home, and ittaught me that it will work, no matter what. My electricity went outeight hours before I experienced the 138 MPH strongest winds ofhurricane IVAN, on Sep. 15, 2004, as it passed very close to my home, inthe pitch black darkness of night. My scheme worked perfectly withoutany electrical power, and/or any conscious control, manual control,“controlled openings”, controllers, data processors, sensors, or anyform of external influence and/or assistance of any kind. I was able tocalmly sit back, take notes, let the storm teach me things few have everobserved, while watching it work perfectly and quickly; through all windincreases and directional changes.

By applying these principals to my own town home located at 1521 ViaDeluna, on Pensacola Beach, Fla., I hereby declare that this was thefirst working prototype of a method and apparatus to utilize wind energywithin a structure as taught in this patent. This prototype provided mewith valuable knowledge and insight, as these principals allowed my townhome to withstand the devastating winds of hurricane IVAN, on Sep. 15,2004. I stayed in my home throughout the hurricane, just like I was toldto do in my dreams, and observed the associated 138+ MPH winds and eightfoot storm surge, to see for myself when, how and where my ideas on thissubject, might fail. My ideas did not fail and are now described in thisapplication. I stayed in my town home for nine additional days afterIVAN, without electricity or running water, while the area was underMartial Law, so I could continue to study the useful, new, novel andnon-obvious ideas taught by this application.

I sat in my home during an actual category 3 hurricane, to test myinvention. I literally risked my life to learn what I am teaching. Ifigured that before I ever asked another human being to risk their livesin structures modified with my ideas, I must verify all of mymathematics and then risk my own life, first. I knew it was the only wayto see and experience what actually happened. I sat next to the windimpact wall of my home and experienced the internal wallboard wallexpand inwards, and I felt air blow out of the holes I had cut in thiswall. I instantly knew they had to be larger, so I corrected myformulas. I also saw and felt my double pane windows flex inward by overan inch, as I heard the wind gust increase outside, and they had highquality storm shutters over them, outside. One of my next door neighborsalso had high quality storm shutters but several of their windows andtheir roof still failed. Experiencing an actual category 3 hurricaneprovides critical information on exactly what happens during a high windevent.

I hereby declare that at the height of the storm I saw and felt the windimpact side of my home switch back and forth from one side to the exactopposite side of my home in an instant. This means that the 138 MPHimpact winds switched 180 degrees in an instant. I doubt any controltheory structure protection scheme; which depends on pressure sensors,pressure transducers, data processors and/or controllers could eversense this rapid powerful change and then perform the math fast enoughto determine which “controlled opening” to open and which one to close.All prior art schemes will fail, because their openings will never workfast enough to solve what I experienced. My roof mountedself-activating, wind energy operated, relief valve skylight continuedto work perfectly during this 180 degree event, popping open as fast asevery few seconds without any interruptions or delays, just as mymathematics said it would. Many times this skylight would open multipletimes in a single second, sounding like machine gun fire.

I hereby declare that while observing the operation of myself-activating, wind energy operated, pressure relief skylight, duringIVAN as described above, I learned exactly how powerful this capturedlow-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force really is; and that I hadnever accurately calculated or observed this force within a structurebefore. I had seen the computer data logs from Ciba, and I hadexperienced the failures of systems based on my patent U.S. Pat. No.7,127,850; but I never thought it could be so powerful. Within a day Irealized how this energy could be captured, channeled, concentratedand/or utilized to power any type, size, form or shape of wind powereddevice, even in winds down to 1.0 MPH and as high as 240 MPH, regardlessof wind direction, including but not limited to wind powered electricalpower generators. Any applicable form, type, size or shape of windpowered device currently existing or invented in the future can be usedwithin my wind energy structures. I just kept on studying it until Idisclosed it on Dec. 24, 2008; without mentioning it to anyone untilthen. These ideas are revealed within a separate patent application,filed on the same day as this one and named “METHOD AND APPARATUS TOUTILIZE THE PUSH-PULL POWER OF AN UPWARDS FLOW OF WIND ENERGY WITHIN ASTRUCTURE”

Thus, there is a need in the current art of structure construction forproviding a method and apparatus that utilizes thelow-velocity-high-pressure wind energy force that will occur within astructure during high winds; and allow structures to better survivehurricanes, derechos, tornadoes and/or other high wind challenges. Ittherefore is an objective of this invention to provide a“self-activating” method and apparatus for constructing structures thatconsist of a “single pressure vessel”, which can easily relieve/channelany and all excess low-velocity-high-pressure wind energy through itsexternal surface and thereby to outside. Such a method and apparatusmust be easy to apply, require no electricity and adequately produce astructure that is actually a “single pressure vessel” operating at auniform pressure, which is not excessive.

This method and apparatus will also include “self-activating reliefvalves” and/or “self-activating transfer openings” on various internalsurfaces to relieve any excess wind energy pressure that can build upwithin the structure as high wind energy pressure wind “leaks” in aroundwindows, doors and/or minor wall imperfections, inflating the structure,and/or it's sealed cavities to destructive wind energy pressures. Ifthere is any doubt that my ideas can be detected on a standardstructure; it must be remembered that after catastrophic wind events,insurance agents and adjusters must visit the effected structures toinspect the damage. They could easily note on their reports whichstructures had my ideas on them. Plus, all fifty states have laws andrestrictions that require “building permits” to retrofit existingstructures and build new structures with the ideas disclosed herein.Just like I had to get a “building permit” before I retrofitted my homewith these ideas. So building permit inspectors could easily note ontheir inspections exactly which structures have my ideas on them. Whilethe “building permits” themselves would provide written proof of whichstructures have my ideas on them.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A method and apparatus for protecting new or existing structures fromhigh winds by utilizing wind energy to form a single pressure vesselwithin the structure. Includes a structure with one or more externalsurfaces, separating one or more internal areas with one or more floorswith one or more rooms and one or more internal surfaces, from anoutside. When attic and/or roof cavity areas are sealed to outside, the“outside” of the structure itself is also the “outside” of the singlepressure vessel. Multiple floor structures are included by reference andinference. These “sealed attic and/or roof cavity areas” as named,include any and all spaces attached to the structure and locateddirectly below the roof structure and directly above the living and/orworking areas. Basements, party rooms, family rooms, stairways, enclosedpools, mechanical rooms, utility rooms and/or all other attached,enclosed, structures that the designer, architect, etc., chooses toprotect and include within the single pressure vessel, are also includedby reference.

One objective of this patent is to design structures where internalareas, such as but not limited to, sealed attics, sealed roof cavities,rooms, floors and/or ceiling cavities, floor cavities, wall cavitiesand/or any and all interstitial areas, etc., within the structure. Alongwith the internal areas of any desired attached, enclosed structures areall constructed into a “single pressure vessel” as defined earlierwithin this application. Where all of these internal areas cancommunicate with each other and operate at a uniform pressure. By“interstitial area”, we refer to “any space and/or area between otherany and all other spaces and/or areas”. The, internal areas of theprotected single pressure vessel will be sealed to all surroundingareas, except each other, within the structure. Practical application ofthis embodiment will involve the deletion of all soffit vents, roofvents, and roof turbine vents, ridge vents, gable vents, etc. Sealedattics must now be completely sealed to outside, except for the additionof self-activating relief valves at the external surface, of theinternal areas, of the single pressure vessel. Now is a good time tofully address “sealed attics and/or roof cavities” and their exactopposites “un-sealed attics and/or roof cavities”. For this applicationat hand “sealed attics and/or roof cavities” are “attics and/or roofcavities that have been sealed to outside, and have absolutely no soffitvents, roof vents, roof turbine vents, ridge vents, gable vents, etc.;but are still fully opened and fully able to communicate with all of theother internal areas of the protected single pressure vessel within thestructure; thereby making them internal areas that are separated fromthe outside; that will be sealed to all surrounding areas that are notpart of the single pressure vessel”.

Inversely, “un-sealed attics and/or un-sealed roof cavities” are “atticsand/or roof cavities that are not sealed to outside, and are fullyopened to and fully able to communicate with outside, though soffitvents, roof vents, roof turbine vents, ridge vents, gable vents, etc.;thereby actually making them part of the outside; that are fully sealedfrom and un-able to communicate with, any of the internal areas of theprotected single pressure vessel within the structure”.

According to a further embodiment, transfer openings are added to thevarious internal surfaces of the sealed attic ceiling surface and/orsealed roof cavity ceiling surface, of the top floor of the structure.Creating a channel to allow captured wind energy pressure to easily andquickly equalize between the sealed attic and/or sealed roof cavity andthe enclosed internal living areas and/or working areas therebyincluding them in the single pressure vessel, which will operate at auniform wind energy pressure. This sealed attic ceiling surface, refersto any and all surfaces that exist between the attic as described, andthe enclosed, internal living and/or working areas. In other cases,ceiling refers also to the upper surface of any living or working area.A ceiling cavity is the area between a ceiling surface and the attic,roof, or floor surface above it. Sometimes a floor cavity from one floorand ceiling cavity from the floor below, can be the same cavity, and canbe called either, or both.

This embodiment can involve the installation of insulation just belowthe roof surface, or even on top of it. For the past 100+ years, thesurface between the attic area and enclosed living and/or working areashas been insulated, and un-sealed attics were allowed to gain heat.Sealing the external surface of the attic to outside will allow heat toincrease in these sealed attic area, unless the insulation is moved tothe roof. Moving the insulation is not critical to the design of asingle pressure vessel, but instead is just a recommendation that willallow for energy savings. I feel that if insulation is installed at thestructure's roof, then insulation is not required at the sealed atticceiling surface located between the sealed attic areas, and the enclosedliving and/or working areas.

According to another aspect of the invention, the internal areas of anyand/or all desired attached and enclosed structures can also be added tothe protected area and then sealed to all surrounding areas, except eachother and the structure core itself; thereby increasing the size of thesingle pressure vessel. Practical application of this aspect will alsoinvolve the addition of transfer openings and/or relief valves to theinternal surfaces of all internal areas and/or spaces within theattached structures, creating a channel that will allow captured windenergy pressures to easily and quickly equalize between all of theinternal areas of all of the attached structures involved. Therebycreating a larger single pressure vessel that will operate at a uniformpressure; preventing the creation of wind energy pressure differencesbetween any of these internal areas and/or spaces.

According to another embodiment, the external ceiling cavities, floorcavities, wall cavities and/or any and all interstitial areas, etc.,within the structure will also have transfer openings and/or reliefvalves added to their internal surfaces, creating channels that willallow captured wind energy pressure to easily and quickly equalizebetween these cavities and the internal areas of the single pressurevessel. This will prevent the uncontrolled buildup of wind energypressures within these external ceiling cavities, floor cavities, wallcavities and/or any and all interstitial areas, etc., within thestructure. For the past 40+ years these external cavities have alwaysbeen sealed to all internal areas and a vapor retarder was normallylocated on the internal side of these external cavities. Allowingpressure to equalize within these external ceiling cavities, floorcavities, wall cavities and/or any and all interstitial areas, etc., andthe internal areas of the single pressure vessel within the structure,will mean that the vapor retarder should be moved to the internal mostside of these external cavities, in colder climates. And to the outermost side of these external cavities, but inside of the weatherresistant external coating on the outside of structures (brick, vinylsiding, wood siding, aluminum siding, stucco, etc.); so that theseentire external cavities now become part of the single pressure vessel,in humid climates.

A vapor retarder should be included to assist in sealing the enclosedinternal areas within the structure and creating the desired singlepressure vessel, but is not required to create a single pressure vessel.A vapor retarder will provide increased humidity control and increasedenergy savings. In hot, humid locations, I feel that the best locationfor this vapor retarder is just behind the weather resistant externalcoating of the structure (brick, vinyl siding, wood siding, aluminumsiding, stucco, etc.). When the vapor retarder is located here, a spacefor ventilation drying should be allowed between the vapor retarder andthe weather resistant external coasting, with vent holes at the top andbottom of each floor that open to outside, so that moisture is allowedto escape. A vapor retarder should not be applied inside the wallstructure, as this would allow moisture to become trapped between it andthe weather resistant external coating, resulting in mold, mildew androt.

A vapor retarder should also be applied to the external most surface ofthe roof structure, for the same reasons. In both of these cases,“external most” means “the surface of the roof and/or wall that is theclosest to an outside”, so as to maximize the size of the singlepressure vessel. I also feel that the best vapor retarder for roofmembranes are tar based, peel and stick products that offer great vaporprotection and help to keep the roof membrane in place during high,strong winds. This peel and stick type of vapor retarder should beapplied to the external surface of the roof structure, and just belowthe roof membrane itself. Again, a vapor retarder should not be appliedbelow the roof structure, as this would allow moisture to become trappedbetween it and the roof membrane, resulting in significant mold, mildewand/or rot.

According to another embodiment, internal areas, such as but not limitedto, attics, rooms, floors and/or ceiling cavities, floor cavities, wallcavities and/or any and all interstitial areas, etc., within thestructure, can also have transfer openings and/or relief valves added totheir internal surfaces, creating channels which allow captured windenergy pressure to quickly and easily equalize within the singlepressure vessel. This will also prevent the uncontrolled buildup of windenergy pressures within these internal areas, such as but not limitedto, attics, rooms, floors and/or internal ceiling cavities, floorcavities, wall cavities and/or any and all interstitial areas, etc.,within the structure, before they become explosive. If insulation isadded to these internal cavities, then vapor retarders should not beemployed unless some specific reason requires them. If a vapor retarderis applied to internal cavities, care should be taken to prevent thegeneration of any separate pressure vessels that could also trapmoisture and/or wind energy pressure.

According to another embodiment of the invention relief valves may beadded to quickly and easily relieve built up internal wind energypressures during any and all high wind challenges. Relief valves havebeen applied to structures in the past but not as used, or describedherein. They can be added to various internal surfaces within thestructure, creating channels to accomplish the single pressure vesselprincipal. They can also be added to the external surface of theinternal areas and/or single pressure vessel. Due to the high windsinvolved, walls are not suitable locations, as deployed by previouspatents. The aerodynamics of high winds could easily prevent a reliefvalve located on a wall from operating at the proper relief pressurewhen needed. The same does not hold true for roof surfaces, due to thewell-known wind energy pressure envelope that develops over roofsurfaces, combined with the aerodynamic lift, that occurs over roofs inhigh winds.

So, for proper operation and protection of structures with sealed atticsand/or roof cavities; relief valves to outside must always be located onthe roof surfaces of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel.Directly after IVAN, I observed that the roof membranes of over 35 homeson Pensacola Beach had undergone catastrophic and uncontrolled explosivewind energy pressure releases, resulting in the roof membrane beingblown up into a bubble at its weakest connection spot. Utilizingcaptured wind energy pressure to operate these relief valves to relievethe built up wind energy pressure right at the external roof surface ofall internal areas, will prevent just this type of explosive wind energypressure release. If sloped roofs are involved, then weather resistantrelief valves should be installed on each external sloped roof surfaceof all internal areas, to prevent wind from blowing directly on all ofthem, at any given moment. So, every sloped roof surface should have atleast one weather resistant relief valve installed on it. Flat roofs canhave as few as one weather resistant relief valve, provided it is sizedand located properly.

There are times where this external surface of the internal areas of thesingle pressure vessel, may not always be the external roof surface ofthe structure due to construction methods that place unprotected areasthat are not part of the single pressure vessel, such as “unsealedattics and/or roof cavities”, between these internal areas and theexternal roof surface of the structure. This situation is described withlanguage such as “the external surface of the internal areas” and/or“the external surface of the single pressure vessel”; which refer to thesame surface, and are interchangeable.

The release pressure for these weather resistant relief valves can beset at any relief pressure desired. I used an existing operable skylighton my town home, and set it to relief at a pressure well below thefailure point of all of my external surfaces. At the height of WAN, thisskylight was relieving the built up wind energy pressures within thestructure, to outside, about every 2 seconds or less, with some releasessounding like machine gun fire every fraction of a second, and wouldthen reset with a loud pop, and some releases could even be felt in myears; reflecting substantial wind energy pressure differentials. I usedthe failure pressure of my roof membrane, as my design relief pressure.I found it to be my weakest external surface. No external surface failedon my town home during IVAN, while both of my next door neighbors lostseveral windows and doors, plus both lost their roof membranes to theexplosive wind energy pressure release described above. Allowing my hometo survive these same wind energy pressure challenges. For otherstructures, other surfaces may have a lower failure pressure.

By reviewing all of the failure pressures, of all of the externalsurfaces (windows, doors, skylights, walls, roof membrane, etc.) for aparticular structure, and then using a percentage of the lowest knownfailure pressure, an adequate relief pressure can easily be determined.Maximum rated wind loads for various external surfaces can easily beconverted to failure pressures, by applying simple velocity pressure(dynamic pressure) conversion formulas. These weather resistant reliefvalves can be any now known device or any device developed in the futurethat will utilize captured wind energy pressure within the structure, toself-activate and create a channel that allows wind energy pressure tobe quickly and easily relieved to outside, so as to prevent catastrophicfailure of a standard structure and/or roof membrane. There is no reasonto limit the design of these relief valves at this time, since no onecurrently employs the principals as described in this patent. Plus, thepractical application of these principals may reveal even moreinformation on how to quickly and easily relieve wind energy pressurebuild ups, before they become catastrophic. According to another aspectof the invention, captured wind energy pressure within the structure canbe utilized to quickly and easily operate these relief valves at any andall internal surfaces within the structure, including but not limited tovarious attics, rooms, floors and/or external and/or internal ceilingcavities, floor cavities, wall cavities and/or any and all interstitialareas, etc., within the single pressure vessel, to provide protectionfrom uncontrolled wind energy pressure differentials.

According to another embodiment, new or existing structures with“un-sealed attics and/or un-sealed roof cavities” that are un-sealed tooutside, can be modified with relief valves between the sealed livingand/or working internal areas, and these “un-sealed attic areas and/orun-sealed roof cavities” at the external surface of all internal areasof the single pressure vessel, to relieve wind energy pressures duringhigh winds. In this situation a single structure may have two“outsides”; one that is “outside of the single pressure vessel” andanother one that is “outside of the structure itself”. Transfer openingsshould not be used at these locations, as they will uncontrollably allowhumidity to enter into the working and/or living area. I hereby declarethat I have never seen anyone else use relief valves at these internalsurfaces, much less transfer openings.

According to another aspect of the invention relief valves and/ortransfer openings may be added between any or all attached, enclosed,structures of the new or existing structure that have un-sealed atticsand/or un-sealed roof cavities that cannot be sealed to outside,including but not limited to the various internal surfaces of rooms,floors and/or external and/or internal ceiling cavities, floor cavities,wall cavities and/or any and all interstitial areas, etc., within all ofthe structures involved, to achieve a single pressure vessel. To preventuncontrolled wind energy pressure differentials during a catastrophicevent, weather resistant relief valves should be used at the externalsurface of all of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel toprevent the uncontrolled entrance of humidity, where transfer openingscould allow humidity to enter and move throughout the structure causingmold or mildew problems. Relief valves can also be added to the roofsurface of these un-sealed attic and/or un-sealed roof cavities, toreadily, easily and quickly relieve wind energy pressure to outside.Since moisture intrusion is not a concern here, weather resistanttransfer openings could also be used on these roof surfaces.

According to another embodiment, internal ceiling cavities, floorcavities, wall cavities and/or any and all interstitial areas, etc.,within these structures with un-sealed attics and/or un-sealed roofcavities, can also have transfer openings and/or relief valves added tothem, creating channels that allow captured wind energy pressure toeasily and quickly equalize within the single pressure vessel. This willalso prevent the uncontrolled buildup of wind energy pressure withinthese internal ceiling cavities, floor cavities, wall cavities and/orany and all interstitial areas, etc., before they become explosive. Ifinsulation is added to these internal cavities, then vapor retardersshould not be employed unless some specific reason requires them. Ifvapor retarders are employed in any internal ceiling cavities, floorcavities, wall cavities, interstitial areas, internal walls, floors andceilings etc.; care should be taken to prevent the generation of anyseparate pressure vessels within the structure, that could trap moistureand/or wind energy pressure.

It should be noted here, that I hereby declare that I personally havenever seen any structure pressure control and/or structure pressuremonitoring system that uses pressure sensors of any type; ever place asingle pressure sensor on a single roof surface, in my life. And thiswas my profession for over twenty years and I currently hold threegranted U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,584,855; 6,968,745 and 7,127,850; that allinvolve structure pressure control. All three use pressure sensors ofvarious types and I purposefully do not claim, disclose and/or showputting any pressure sensors whatsoever, on any roof surfaceswhatsoever, please check me out. This is why the dream I had in March of2004 concerning utilizing wind energy within my home, to actuallyprotect it from a coming hurricane; involved installing aself-activating pressure relief valve on every roof surface. I knewinstantly that no pressure sensors could be used, because I alreadylearned that they would fail when I needed them the most. I was alsohonestly mystified when that dream told me to use an operable skylightthat I had installed on my home in 1983.

And yes, another dream told me install that skylight and to make sure itwas operable. I took many showers and sat in many hot tubs, as rainpoured in on me through that opened skylight. I would always close itwhen I finished using it. It is the one thing about that home that Imiss the most. It took less than an hour and only about $10.00 in parts;to convert it into a “self-activating relief valve” in 2004, asdisclosed herein. I then used my fish weight scale that used springresistance to determine fish weigh; to set the bungee to release at 60pounds of internal wind energy pressure. Another point about all ofthese dreams, is that in March of 2004 I was recovering from open heartsurgery and did not have the strength or stamina to build that skylighton my home at that time. It took over 8 months in 1983 to rip out theold tub, install a hot tub and reinforce all 3 floors involved, to takethe added weight of a 100 gallon hot tub. And to meticulously waterproof the skylight and the entire tub area so that incoming rain wouldnot destroy my home.

So if I had not had that dream in 1983 and acted on it at that time,there is no way I could have complied with the dreams of 2004. Talkingabout my dreams like this is a little unsettling, but it is the truthand the patent laws require that applicants tell the truth. I guess weare the only ones in the examination process that have too! Trying tolie about all of this would have proved much more difficult; and theresulting complex lies, would have eventually fallen apart, making melook worse than I do now. Plus, it is easier to tell the truth, thantrying to remember a bunch of lies. All of which truly startles me andwhenever I work on the dreams that HE gave me, I always feel my LORD'Spleasure. I still do not know exactly why he chose me. I am truly nosaint. The dreams were incredibly clear and concise; all I had to do wasto figure out the mathematics involved and to work on what I was allowedto observe. It gave me something to do at a time when I honestly thoughtthat I had nothing left to live for. It is hard, tough manual labor thathas allowed me to get stronger; and I am thankful for it.

A reasonable person might ask, why would I say that a pressure sensor ona roof surface will fail? It is because I took over 500 pressurereadings on roof surfaces of various sizes and shapes; before I everfiled for the first of those three granted patents. I quickly discoveredthat all roofs are under a continuous high-velocity-low-pressurecondition, as clearly disclosed earlier within this application. I knewthat this constant low pressure sensor reading would have introduced ananomaly into my sensor calculations; eventually leading to the entirefailure of my control system due to bad sensor input data. It would havedone the same to PARKER's scheme. Please check me out, I never installedany pressure sensors on any roof surface whatsoever at Ciba, noranywhere else. I say that if PARKER had ever built a working model ofhis scheme, and survived the hurricane; he would have also noted thisanomaly and never mounted another pressure sensor on another roofsurface. PARKER never shows a single pressure sensor on a single roof inany of his drawings; he just refer to the option. Even ASHRAE did notrecommend installing a pressure sensor on a roof surface, back in 1999when PARKER filed his application. This is just one more reason why anyhigh wind structure protection scheme that depends on pressure sensorinput data will never work properly when needed and/or where it isneeded the most, on the roof. And as I clearly point out herein, theroof is the absolute best place to relieve internal pressure buildups,during high wind events, such as hurricanes and tornadoes.

So, even though structures are emphasized in this patent, it isunderstood that the same principles of protecting a single pressurevessel structure during high winds and/or constructing a wind energystructure could easily and effectively be applied to any structurewhat-so-ever; such as but not limited to commercial, military,governmental, industrial, amusement, vehicular and/or residential, evenhigh rise structures, etc., regardless of size, shape, and/or number offloors and/or decks involved. Other aspects of the invention are morefully disclosed hereafter.

While preferred embodiments have been described, it will be appreciatedthat other modifications, adaptations and changes to the invention willbe readily apparent to those skilled in the art. I hereby declare that Ihad all of these included ideas back in 2006 and chose to keep some ofthem private until now. I have just realized that I am now unable topatent my core ideas as originally planned. This would have protectedall of the above therein and prevented others from taking them from me;while I continued to study them. Since I am forced to dramatically limitmy claims; I must clearly state now, how I intended to employ my ideas,all along.

DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIGS. 1-4 Are cross section views of a method and apparatus forprotecting new or existing structures from high winds by utilizing windenergy to form a “single pressure vessel” within the structure. Andincludes a structure with one or more external surfaces, separating oneor more internal areas with one or more floors with one or more roomsand one or more internal surfaces, from an outside.

FIG. 1 Illustrates how all of the attics and roof cavities are sealed tooutside; illustrating that the “outside” of the structure itself is alsothe “outside” of the “single pressure vessel”. Revealing that theexternal surface of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel canbe the external surface of the structure.

FIG. 2 Is a cross section view similar to FIG. 1, illustrating thesealing of attached, enclosed structures to enlarge the “single pressurevessel”.

FIG. 3 Is a cross section view illustrating un-sealed attics and/orun-sealed roof cavities that cannot be sealed to outside. In thissituation, the “outside” of the structure itself is not always the“outside” of the single pressure vessel. This shows how the externalsurface of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel is notalways the external surface of the structure.

FIG. 4 Is a cross section view of new or existing multi-floor, high risestructures. In this situation, the “outside” of the structure itself isalso the “outside” of the single pressure vessel. This shows how theexternal surface of the internal areas of the single pressure vessel isnot always the external surface of the structure.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

FIGS. 1-4 One embodiment of the present invention is illustrated by wayof example; of a method and apparatus for protecting new or existingstructures 10 from high winds by utilizing wind energy to form a singlepressure vessel 12 within structure 10 with one or more externalsurfaces 22, 40 and/or 58 separating one or more internal areas 12 withone or more floors with one or more rooms and one or more internalsurfaces (shown with many numbers), from an outside 32. While it isimportant to show the rooms and/or floors involved; none of them will benumbered to avoid confusion in defining the single pressure vessel 12.Also, it serves no purpose to show and/or number, either wind and/orwind energy in FIGS. 1-4. Neither their presence, nor their directionaffects the locations of any transfer openings 24 and/or relief valves26; because high winds can come from any direction. Also, due to themany variables involving the “self-activation” operation or 24 and/or 26during high winds; it would prove too complex and cumbersome to clearlyshow this within these drawings. Each and every channel shown in FIGS.1-4 will be “self-activating”, as fully disclosed herein.

FIG. 1 Illustrates structures 10 that have sealed attics 56, and/orsealed roof cavities 60, that are not opened to outside 32; with singleor multiple floors, floor surfaces 36, floor cavities 38, ceilingsurfaces 50, ceiling cavities 52, external wall surfaces 40, externalwall cavities 42, internal wall surfaces 44, internal wall cavities 46,sealed attic 56, sealed attic ceiling surfaces 54 and rooms. The sealedexternal surface 22 is shown with a thick black line. A clearillustrations of how the external surface 22 of the internal area 12 canbe the external surface 40 and/or 58 of the structure 10, is shown.

This sealed external surface 22 is used to establish the externalsurface of the single pressure vessel 12. Therefore, all of the internalareas 12 within a single, continuous sealed external surface 22 that aremarked 12 are internal areas of the same, single pressure vessel 12.Various possible locations of transfer openings 24 and/or relief valves26, are shown for example only, and not by way of limitation, to allowwind energy pressure to easily and quickly equalize between all of theinternal areas of the single pressure vessel 12. Such as but not limitedto, through floor surfaces 36, floor cavities 38, through ceilingsurfaces 50, ceiling cavities 52, external wall cavities 42, throughinternal wall surfaces 44, internal wall cavities 46, sealed attic 56,through sealed attic ceiling surfaces 54, and/or sealed roof cavities60, rooms and/or floors, of the structure 10. Any location of transferopenings 24 and/or relief valves 26 that is desired and/or appropriatemay be used.

This drawing clearly illustrates the formation of a single pressurevessel 12, in a new or existing structure 10, that has a sealed attic56, or sealed roof cavity 60, that is not opened to outside 32, byestablishing the external surface 22 of the single pressure vessel 12with a thick black line, through the implementation of sealed externalsurface 22. This along with transfer openings 24 and/or relief valves26, are done so that all of the internal areas 12 to be protected, suchas but not limited to, through floor surfaces 36, floor cavities 38,through ceiling surfaces 50, ceiling surfaces 50, ceiling cavities 52,external wall cavities 42, through internal wall surfaces 44, internalwall cavities 46, sealed attic 56, through sealed attic ceiling surfaces54, sealed roof cavities 60, rooms and/or floors, of the structure 10,can easily communicate with each other throughout the single pressurevessel 12 and allow wind energy pressure to easily and quickly equalizebetween one another, and all of the internal areas of the entire singlepressure vessel 12 and not outside 32. The sealed external surface 22prevents the protected internal areas 12 within the structure 10 fromuncontrollably communicating with outside 32. There are times where thissealed external surface 22 of the internal areas of the single pressurevessel 12, may not always be the external surface 40 and/or 58 of thestructure 10 due to construction methods that place unprotected areas(not shown) that are not part of the single pressure vessel 12, betweenthe internal areas 12 and the external surface 40 and/or 58 of structure10. This situation is described with language such as “the externalsurface 22 of the internal areas 12” and/or “the external surface 22 ofthe single pressure vessel 12”. FIG. 1 provides a clear illustration ofhow the external surface 22 of the internal areas 12 can be the externalsurface 40 and/or 58 of the structure 10.

FIG. 2 According to one embodiment, FIG. 2 includes the addition of twoattached, enclosed structures 14, that are to be included in the singlepressure vessel 12, of a new or existing structure 10, that has a sealedattic 56, or sealed roof cavity 60, that is not opened to outside 32.The sealed external surface 22 is now extended to include structures 14.Therefore, all of the internal areas 12 within a single, continuousexternal surface 22 that are marked 12 are parts of the same singlepressure vessel 12. For example only, and not by way of limitation thisdrawing includes a garage 18, on the right side of the structure 10, andan enclosed swimming pool area 20, on the left side of the structure 10.A more complete description of the variety of possible locations fortransfer openings 24 and/or relief valves 26 is shown for example only,and not by way of limitation, to allow wind energy pressure to easilyand quickly equalize between all of the internal areas of the singlepressure vessel 12, of a new or existing structure 10, that has a sealedattic 56, or sealed roof cavity 60, that is not opened to outside 32.Such as but not limited to, through floor surfaces 36, floor cavities38, through ceiling surfaces 50, ceiling cavities 52, external wallcavities 42, through internal wall surfaces 44, internal wall cavities46, sealed attic 56, through sealed attic ceiling surfaces 54, sealedroof cavities 60, rooms and/or floors, of structure 10.

Any location of transfer openings 24 and/or relief valves 26 that isdesired and/or appropriate may be used. Please note that when transferopenings 24 and/or relief valves 26, are installed in an external wallcavity 42, they are only installed on the internal wall surface 44, ofthis cavity 42 that faces, opens up to, the single pressure vessel 12.The external wall surface 40 is the one that is closest to the outside32. Neither this external wall surface 40, nor its sealed externalsurface 22, are ever pierced by anything except required openings (notshown), windows (not shown), and/or doors (not shown) that are thensealed in place. In fact, under no circumstances is the sealed externalsurface 22 ever pierced, except by required openings (not shown),windows (not shown), and/or doors (not shown) that are then sealed inplace, as well as possible, or by weather resistant relief valves 26, tooutside 32, that are installed on all roof surfaces 58, in order toeasily and quickly relieve wind energy pressure build ups within thestructure 10, to outside 32, at the external surface of the structure58. FIG. 2 clearly illustrates how the external surface 22 of theinternal areas 12 can be external surface 40 and/or 58 of structure 10.

Stairways (not shown) in a normal multiple floor, new, or existingstructure 10, that has a sealed attic 56, or sealed roof cavity 60, thatis not opened to outside 32, will serve as a perfect self-activating,wind energy operated, transfer openings 24, between the various floors.When this is true, then the transfer openings 24, and/or relief valves26, that are mounted on ceiling surfaces 50, of the various floors, willonly pierce the ceiling surface 50, and allow wind energy pressure to bequickly and easily released from the ceiling cavity 52. If there is nostairway (not shown), or if for some reason, the stairway (not shown) issealed, or has some other form of restriction, then some of the ceilingsurface 50 mounted transfer openings 24 and/or relief valves 26, willneed to be installed on both the ceiling surface 50 and the floorsurface 36 above the ceiling cavity 52, so that wind energy pressure caneasily and quickly equalize between the multiple floors involved, andeasily escape the ceiling cavity 52. Sometimes a floor cavity 38 fromone floor and a ceiling cavity 52 from the floor below, can be the samecavity 38 or 52, and can be called either or both.

FIGS. 1,2 AND 4 According to anther embodiment of the invention, FIGS.1, 2 and 4 also illustrates how weather resistant relief valves 26 tothe outside 32, that pierce the sealed external surface 22, at the roofsurface 58, may be added to relieve built up wind energy pressures fromwithin the single pressure vessel 12 of a new or existing structure 10,that has a sealed attic 56, or sealed roof cavity 60, that is not openedto outside 32, that occur during any and all wind and wind energypressure challenges. These FIGURES provide a clear illustration of howthe external surface 22 of the internal areas 12 can be the externalsurface 40 and/or 58 of the structure 10. These roof 58 mounted weatherresistant relief valves 26, to outside 32, are the only time that thesealed external surface 22 is pierced, other than for required openings(not shown), doors (not shown), and/or windows (not shown), and theseshould then be sealed in place, as well as possible. Due to the highwinds involved, external wall surfaces 40, are not a suitable locationfor these relief valves 26, as deployed by previous patents. Theaerodynamic forces of high winds on a relief valve 26, located on anexternal wall surface 40, or on only one side of a sloped roof surface58, could easily prevent it from operating at the proper relief windenergy pressure, when needed. The same does not hold true for flat roofsurfaces 58, or sloped roof surfaces 58 that are not in the direct pathof the wind, due to the well know wind energy pressure envelope, thatdevelops over roof surfaces 58. So, for proper operation and protection,the weather resistant relief valves 26, which open to outside 32, mustbe located on roof surface 58.

So, if the roof surface 58 is sloped, weather resistant relief valves 26should be installed on all of the sloped sides of the roof surface 58.So, in other words, every slopped roof surface 58 should have at leastone weather resistant relief valve 26, installed on it. This will allowa wind energy pressure envelope to develop over at least one of theweather resistant relief valves 26 to allow it to operate properlyduring high winds. Individual flat roof surfaces 58 and individualsloped roof surfaces 58 can each have a few as one weather resistantrelief valves 26, provided it is sized and located properly. More thanone weather resistant relief valves 26 can be used on each of these roofsurfaces 58, if desired. The weather resistant relief valves 26 can belocated anywhere on the roof surface 58 that is desired, or appropriate,as long as it is sized properly and can easily communicate with thesingle pressure vessel 12.

FIG. 3 Due to the way that some new or existing structures 70 areconstructed with un-sealed attics 72, un-sealed roof cavities 74 and/orany other areas that cannot be sealed to outside 32, I feel that it willbe difficult, but not impossible to create a sealed external surface 22and convert them to the above described single pressure vessel 12. FIG.3 is another embodiment of the invention that illustrates how weatherresistant relief valves 26, can be added to the external surface 22 ofthe single pressure vessel 12 as shown with a thick black line, in a newor existing structure 70; which in this case are the ceiling surfaces 76just below the un-sealed attic. This will allow wind energy pressure tobe released from the internal areas of single pressure vessel 12, intothe un-sealed attic 72, un-sealed roof cavities 74 and/or any otherun-sealed areas, at this external surface 22 of all internal areas ofthe single pressure vessel 12 and thereby to outside 32, before anuncontrolled catastrophic explosive wind energy pressure release occurs.Transfer openings 24 should not be used at these locations as they couldallow humidity to uncontrollably enter into internal areas 12. Anylocation of the weather resistant relief valves 26, on ceiling surfaces76 that is desired and/or appropriate, may be used. Weather resistantrelief valves 26 can also be added to the roof surface 58 of theseun-sealed attic 72, un-sealed roof cavities 74 and/or any otherun-sealed areas to readily, quickly and easily relieve wind energypressure to outside 32. Since moisture intrusion is not a concern hereweather resistant transfer openings 24 could also be used.

Refer again to this drawing, for a variety of possible locations fortransfer openings 24 and/or relief valves 26, in new or existingstructure 70 that have un-sealed attics 72 and/or un-sealed roofcavities 74 that cannot be sealed to outside 32. Relief valves 26locations are shown for example only, and not by way of limitation toallow wind energy pressure to easily equalize between all of theinternal areas of the single pressure vessel 12 of the new or existingstructures 70 such as but not limited to, floors, through floor surfaces36, floor cavities 38, through ceiling surfaces 50, ceiling cavities 52,external wall cavities 42, through internal wall surfaces 44, internalwall cavities 46, rooms, before an uncontrolled catastrophic wind energypressure release occurs. All the internal areas 12 within a single,continuous surface 22 that are marked 12, are parts of the same singlepressure vessel 12. Transfer openings 24 and/or relief valves 26 can belocated as desired and/or where appropriate.

Again, relief valves 26 will prevent the uncontrolled entrance ofhumidity into the internal area of the single pressure vessel 12 of thestructure 70, where transfer openings 24, could allow humidity to enterand move throughout the structure 70, uncontrollably, and causeconsiderable mold, mildew and/or rot problems. As mentioned above, itcould be difficult, but not impossible to establish the external surface22 of the single pressure vessel 12 as shown with a thick black line,through the implementation of a sealed external surface 22 and convertnew or existing structures 70 into the above described single pressurevessel 12. Or they can just be modified as best as possible withtransfer openings 24 and/or relief valves 26.

Please note that when transfer openings 24 and/or relief valves 26, areinstalled in an external wall cavity 42, they are only installed on theinternal wall surface 44, of this cavity 42 that faces, opens up to, thesingle pressure vessel 12, of a new or existing structure 70. Theexternal wall surface 40 is the one that is closest to the outside 32.Neither this external wall surface 40, nor its sealed external surface22, if installed, are ever pierced by anything except required openings(not shown), windows (not shown), and/or doors (not shown) that are thensealed in place. In fact, if a sealed external surface 22 is created ona new or existing structure 70, then under no circumstances is thesealed external surface 22 ever pierced except by required openings (notshown), windows (not shown), and/or doors (not shown) that are thensealed in place, as well as possible, or by the weather resistant reliefvalves 26, to outside 32 at ceiling surfaces 76 just below the un-sealedattic. There are times where this sealed external surface 22 of theinternal areas of the single pressure vessel 12, may not always be theexternal surface 40 and/or 58 of the structure 70, as shown, due toconstruction methods that place unprotected areas 72 and/or 74 betweenthe internal areas 12 and the external surface 40 and/or 58 of structure70. This situation is described with language such as “the externalsurface 22 of the internal areas 12” and/or “the external surface 22 ofthe single pressure vessel 12”. This drawing provides a clearillustration of how the external surface 22 of the internal areas 12 isnot always the external surface 40 and/or 58 of the structure 70.“Outside” 32 refers to “all areas of any kind that are beyond any andall of the surfaces 22, 40, 76 and/or 58 as defined and illustrated inFIGS. 1-4”. This FIGURE adds clarity to the fact that, for thisinvention a single structure 70, and/or structure 10 (as illustrated inFIGS. 1, 2 and 4), may have two “outsides” 32; one “outside” 32 of thesingle pressure vessel 12 at ceiling surfaces 76 just below theun-sealed attic and another one that is “outside” 32 of the structure 70and/or 10 itself at roof surface 58.

Stairways (not shown) in a normal multiple floor, new or existingstructure 70 will serve as a perfect self-activating, wind energyoperated, transfer openings 24, between the various floors. When this istrue, then the transfer openings 24 and/or relief valves 26 that aremounted on the ceiling surfaces 50, will only pierce the ceiling surface50, and allow wind energy pressure to be easily and quickly releasedfrom the ceiling cavity 52. If there is no stairway (not shown) or iffor some reason, the stairway (not shown) is sealed or has some otherform of restriction, then some of the ceiling surface 50 mountedtransfer openings 24 and/or relief valves 26, will need to be installedthrough the ceiling surface 50 and the floor surface 36 above theceiling cavity 52, so that wind energy pressure can easily escape theceiling cavity 52 and/or floor cavity 38, and equalize between thefloors.

FIG. 4 Clearly illustrates a new or existing multiple floor 34, highrise structure 10 that can be of unlimited height and unlimited numberof floors 34 and rooms. Shown is the formation of a single pressurevessel 12, that has a sealed attic (not shown), or sealed roof cavity60, that is not opened to outside 32, by establishing the externalsurface 22 of the single pressure vessel 12 with a thick black line,through the implementation of sealed external surface 22. Therefore, allof the internal areas 12 within a single, continuous surface 22 that aremarked 12, are parts of the same single pressure vessel 12. This alongwith transfer openings 24 and/or relief valves 26, are done so that allof the internal areas of the single pressure vessel 12 to be protected,such as but not limited to, through floor surfaces 36, floor cavities38, through ceiling surfaces 50, ceiling surfaces 50, ceiling cavities52, external wall cavities 42, through internal wall surfaces 44,internal wall cavities (not shown), sealed attic (not shown), throughsealed attic ceiling surfaces 54, sealed roof cavities 60, rooms and/orfloors 34, of the structure 10, can easily communicate with each otherand allow wind energy pressure to quickly equalize between one another,and all of the internal areas of the entire single pressure vessel 12and not outside 32. The sealed external surface 22 prevents theprotected areas 12 from communicating with outside 32. In fact, under nocircumstances is the sealed external surface 22 ever pierced, except byrequired openings (not shown), windows (not shown), and/or doors (notshown) that are then sealed in place, as well as possible, or by theweather resistant relief valves 26, to outside 32, that are installed onall roof surfaces 58, in order to easily and quickly relieve wind energypressure build ups within the single pressure vessel 12, to outside 32.FIG. 4 clearly illustrates how the external surface 22 of the internalareas 12 can be the external surface 40 and/or 58 of the structure 10.

The description of the present embodiments of the invention has beenpresented for the purposes of illustration, but is not intended to beexhaustive or to limit the invention to the form disclosed. Manymodifications, adaptations and variations will be apparent to those ofordinary skill in the art. As such, the present invention has beendisclosed in connection with the preferred embodiments which fall withinthe spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the followingclaims.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for utilizing wind energy that leaksinto a structure to protect it from high winds including: a) a structurewith one or more external surfaces, separating one or more internalareas with one or more floors with one or more rooms and one or moreinternal surfaces, from an outside; b) wherein at least one of said oneor more external surfaces has one or more unplanned leaks that allowssaid wind energy to leak into said structure; c) providing one or morerelief valves; d) further providing at least one of said one or morerelief valves in at least one of said one or more external surfaces ofsaid structure; e) wherein said at least one of said one or more reliefvalves in said at least one of said one or more external surfaces isconfigured to connect at least one of said one or more internal areaswithin at least one of said one or more floors within at least one ofsaid one or more rooms within said structure, with said outside; f)wherein said at least one of said one or more relief valves is furtherconfigured to allow said wind energy that leaks through at least one ofsaid one or more unplanned leaks in at least one of said one or moreexternal surfaces of said structure, and into said at least one of saidone or more internal areas within said at least one of said one or morefloors within said at least one of said one or more rooms, within saidstructure, to move through said at least one of said one or moreexternal surface and into said outside based on set points; and g)further including setting at least one of said set points for said atleast one of said one or more relief valves.
 2. The method of claim 1further including: a) providing one or more transfer openings; b)further providing at least one of said one or more transfer openings inleast one of said one or more external surfaces of said structureconfigured to connect at least one of said one or more internal areaswithin at least one of said one or more floors within at least one ofsaid one or more rooms within said structure, with said outside; c)wherein said at least one of said one or more transfer openings in saidat least one of said one or more external surfaces is further configuredto allow said wind energy to move between said at least one of said oneor more internal areas within said at least one of said one or morefloors within said at least one of said one or more rooms within saidstructure, and said outside.
 3. The method of claim 1 further including:a) providing at least one of said one or more relief valves in at leastone of said one or more internal surfaces within at least one of saidone or more internal areas within at least one of said one or morefloors within at least one of said one or more rooms, within saidstructure; b) wherein said at least one of said one or more reliefvalves in said at least one of said one or more internal surfaces isconfigured to allow said wind energy that leaks through at least one ofsaid one or more unplanned leaks in at least one of said one or moreexternal surfaces of said structure, and into said at least one of saidone or more internal areas within said at least one of said one or morefloors within said at least one of said one or more rooms, to movethrough said at least one of said one or more internal surfaces, withinsaid structure, based on set points; and c) further including setting atleast one of said set points for said at least one of said one or morerelief valves.
 4. The method of claim 1 further including: a) providingone or more transfer openings; b) further providing at least one of saidone or more transfer openings in at least one of said one or moreinternal surfaces within at least one of said one or more internal areaswithin at least one of said one or more floors within at least one ofsaid one or more rooms within said structure; c) wherein said at leastone of said one or more transfer openings in said at least one of saidone or more internal surfaces is configured to allow said wind energythat leaks through at least one of said one or more unplanned leaks inat least one of said one or more external surfaces of said structure,and into said at least one of said one or more internal areas withinsaid at least one of said one or more floors within said at least one ofsaid one or more rooms, to move through said at least one of said one ormore internal surfaces, within said structure.
 5. An apparatus forutilizing wind energy that leaks into a structure to protect it fromhigh winds including: a) a structure with one or more external surfaces,separating one or more internal areas with one or more floors with oneor more rooms and one or more internal surfaces, from an outside; b)wherein at least one of said one or more external surfaces has one ormore unplanned leaks that allows said wind energy to leak into saidstructure; c) providing one or more relief valves; d) further providingat least one of said one or more relief valves in at least one of saidone or more external surfaces of said structure; e) wherein said atleast one of said one or more relief valves in said at least one of saidone or more external surfaces is further configured to connect at leastone of said one or more internal areas within at least one of said oneor more floors within at least one of said one or more rooms within saidstructure, with said outside; f) wherein said at least one of said oneor more relief valves is configured to allow said wind energy that leaksthrough at least one of said one or more unplanned leaks in at least oneof said one or more external surfaces of said structure, and into saidat least one of said one or more internal areas within said at least oneof said one or more floors within said at least one of said one or morerooms, within said structure, to move through said at least one of saidone or more external surface and into said outside based on set points;and g) further including setting at least one of said set points forsaid at least one of said one or more relief valves.
 6. The apparatus ofclaim 5 further including: a) providing one or more transfer openings;b) further providing at least one of said one or more transfer openingsin least one of said one or more external surfaces of said structureconfigured to connect at least one of said one or more internal areaswithin at least one of said one or more floors within at least one ofsaid one or more rooms within said structure, with said outside; c)wherein said at least one of said one or more transfer openings in saidat least one of said one or more external surfaces is further configuredto allow said wind energy to move between said at least one of said oneor more internal areas within said at least one of said one or morefloors within said at least one of said one or more rooms within saidstructure, and said outside.
 7. The apparatus of claim 5 furtherincluding: a) providing at least one of said one or more relief valvesin at least one of said one or more internal surfaces within at leastone of said one or more internal areas within at least one of said oneor more floors within at least one of said one or more rooms, withinsaid structure; b) wherein said at least one of said one or more reliefvalves in said at least one of said one or more internal surfaces isconfigured to allow said wind energy that leaks through at least one ofsaid one or more unplanned leaks in at least one of said one or moreexternal surfaces of said structure, and into said at least one of saidone or more internal areas within said at least one of said one or morefloors within said at least one of said one or more rooms, to movethrough said at least one of said one or more internal surfaces, withinsaid structure, based on set points; and c) further including setting atleast one of said set points for said at least one of said one or morerelief valves.
 8. The apparatus of claim 5 further including: a)providing one or more transfer openings; b) further providing at leastone of said one or more transfer openings in at least one of said one ormore internal surfaces within at least one of said one or more internalareas within at least one of said one or more floors within at least oneof said one or more rooms within said structure; c) wherein said atleast one of said one or more transfer openings in said at least one ofsaid one or more internal surfaces is configured to allow said windenergy that leaks through at least one of said one or more unplannedleaks in at least one of said one or more external surfaces of saidstructure, and into said at least one of said one or more internal areaswithin said at least one of said one or more floors within said at leastone of said one or more rooms, to move through said at least one of saidone or more internal surfaces, within said structure.